dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5
share rss forum feed

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to KrK

Re: FCC Rebuffs common sense....

said by KrK:

I think it's worth repeating that peering exists for ISP's to serve their customers.

Peering exists to connect networks together. Networks exist to connect endpoints (i.e. customers).
said by KrK:

When they fail to smoothly accept the traffic

Or the other companies fail to equitably provide the traffic. (two-way street remember )
said by KrK:

The idea that unless the ISP customers upload as much data as they download the ISP the ISP gets to charge more for interconnection is asinine.

Not at all. That's how networks have interconnected for a long time. After all, if I connect to multiple networks and those networks dump all of their traffic on my network for transit, why should I just accept that at no cost? I must now increase capacity to keep my head above water which just encourages more providers to dump their traffic on my network since it saves them money. Do you see how that isn't equitable?


Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

3 recommendations

said by openbox9:

After all, if I connect to multiple networks and those networks dump all of their traffic on my network for transit, why should I just accept that at no cost?

Yes, because that traffic is being requested by your customers who you are charging to be able to access that content, not just being dumped by another company. As others have already mentioned you can switch to another ISP, but most people don't have much choice in ISP.

Then on the ISP side you have companies who raise their rates on a regular basis to pay their shareholders and CEOs, not to upgrade their infrastructure.

It was amazing after Net Neutrality was stuck down all of a sudden there started being issues with Netflix content being delivered properly. This was a problem created by the ISPs, they have the ability to deliver the content properly, but choose not to.
--
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something." - Robert A. Heinlein

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by Kilroy:

Yes, because that traffic is being requested

That doesn't change the inequality of data transiting networks.
said by Kilroy:

Then on the ISP side you have companies who raise their rates on a regular basis to pay their shareholders and CEOs, not to upgrade their infrastructure.

Show me a major ISP that isn't spending a lot of money on CAPEX.
said by Kilroy:

It was amazing after Net Neutrality was stuck down all of a sudden there started being issues with Netflix

Actually, the complaints were building before the rules were invalidated (not that they were ever enforced in the first place).
said by Kilroy:

This was a problem created by the ISPs

Very debatable, even originally doubted by Netflix before they started paying for peering.


IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC
kudos:1
reply to Kilroy

Exactly.



nothing00

join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

2 edits

3 recommendations

reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

That doesn't change the inequality of data transiting networks.

Inequality has nothing to do with this. It sure sounds like a noble talking point but a residential ISP's role is inherently one-sided and you know it. Please list the symmetric (equal transfer) protocols in use by end consumers. Let me know if that's what your idea of what the Internet is. (You might not want to use a web browser for this exercise.)
said by openbox9:

Show me a major ISP that isn't spending a lot of money on CAPEX.

I could pay for the peering upgrade myself. I'm not rich. It's not how much is being spent, it's where it's not being spent. It's not being spent in a very strategic location. And again, you know this. Residential ISPs have made a "choice". The money to upgrade those peering links to serve their customers is inconsequential to them.
said by openbox9:

Very debatable, even originally doubted by Netflix before they started paying for peering.

Not really debatable. When a residential ISP doesn't upgrade its capacity because it wants everyone ELSE on the Internet to pay for upgrades we have a problem.

edit: I'm being silly. Actually, the residential ISPs don't want everyone else to pay for upgrades. They want to be paid for 'value'. Which far exceeds actual costs.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

2 recommendations

reply to openbox9

You dont seem to understanding peering if you are honestly going to sit here and state that backbone traffic that is being delivered to the ISP needs to be equitable. 1.) ISP traffic is very much one way no matter how you try to claim it is a 2 way. The asynchronous connections and ban on servers assures this 2.) Regardless of that it is the ISP customers requesting the traffic and it is 100% the responsibility of the ISP to maintain their network to accommodate THEIR consumers. If they can't do it, then they need to upgrade or find a way to have less consumers requesting traffic.

You claiming anything else is sheer stupidity or ignorance of the process on your part or a clear attempt on your part to deceive.


FactChecker
Premium
join:2008-06-03

You really have a 10 year old view around how the Internet is put together. The old tiered hierarchy is long gone and most large ISPs have a blend of domestic, international and regional infrastructures. They also have a blend of customers both residential, commercial and large content.

I can see why this taints your views around residential asymmetry, but it really is outdated.
--
"Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to nothing00

said by nothing00:

Inequality has nothing to do with this.

What do you think settlement-free vs paid peering is exactly?
said by nothing00:

It's not being spent in a very strategic location.

I don't know that, nor does anyone else here attempting to argue this point. Comcast is on the record stating it was not allowing it's interconnect to saturate. Netflix was on the record stating it didn't believe Comcast was doing that. I'm left scratching my head how everyone runs to blame the last mile ISPs. Nobody even seems to mention the possibility of another party at fault. I guess that's not as fun or scandalous.
said by nothing00:

Not really debatable.

It surely is debatable, especially since we've been having this debate for a few months now. BTW, Comcast is much, much more than a residential ISP.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to Skippy25

said by Skippy25:

You dont seem to understanding peering

Let me know when you're ready to actually discuss peering.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to FactChecker

That is not relevant in any way. Regardless of how big they are and how robust their network/services are they are still 100% responsible for making sure their networks are maintained to accommodate their consumers regardless if is residential, commericial or large content.

If their network can't handle their consumers (regardless of type) then they need to either upgrade it or find a way to reduce their consumers so the load is less. PERIOD. There is no 2 ways about it.