dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2055
« Blame the customers
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

1 recommendation

78036364 (banned)

Member

Level 3 full of it.

Level 3 is mad they are being asked to pay a fee they don't want to pay. Is willing however to buy thousands of port cards that cost several thousand each.

Ignite
Premium Member
join:2004-03-18
UK

Ignite

Premium Member

said by 78036364:

Level 3 is mad they are being asked to pay a fee they don't want to pay. Is willing however to buy thousands of port cards that cost several thousand each.

Level 3 are a tier 1. As far as I know they don't pay lower tier networks for the privilege of connecting to them, they are supplying connectivity to non-peered networks to those lower tier networks.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

1 edit

12 recommendations

Selenia to 78036364

Premium Member

to 78036364
Pay a fee for traffic through Verizon that Verizon's paying customers request? Netflix pays Level 3 to deliver the bits and Level 3 gives Netflix enough capacity. But people pay Verizon to deliver the requested content and Verizon fails to give enough capacity? Why should Level 3 pay for capacity that customers pay Verizon to deliver? Why should transit providers be a charity for big rich Verizon? Sheesh do the shills come out when you mention the words Comcast, Verizon, peering, throttling, or congestion

SoulForge
@141.116.212.x

2 recommendations

SoulForge to 78036364

Anon

to 78036364
said by 78036364:

Level 3 is mad they are being asked to pay a fee they don't want to pay. Is willing however to buy thousands of port cards that cost several thousand each.

.......what? Level 3 isn't being asked to pay. Netflix is being asked by Verizon to pay. Plugging in those unused ports on verizon's end to level 3 shown in the diagram would fix the problem in no time at all.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

1 recommendation

WhatNow to Selenia

Premium Member

to Selenia
You get what you pay for.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

9 recommendations

Selenia

Premium Member

Which never seems to be what a company claims you get, especially if that company is Verizon. Buy 30 megabits, get 30 only on sites they approve of? Bullshit! They get their fees from customers then pout and not deliver the agreed upon product when they can't double dip the content or transit providers. Essentially choosing winners and losers according to how much their non customer content providers pay for the mafia insurance...ummm I mean direct peering.

Verizon: Buy our transit insurance.
Content: Why do I need it? The ISP I pay provides transit and your customers pay you for last mile.
Verizon: Because if you don't, something very bad might happen to your bits if you know what I mean.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

AVonGauss to SoulForge

Premium Member

to SoulForge
Huh? If NetFlix is sending traffic through Level 3 to Verizon, Verizon would be looking to Level 3 to pay not NetFlix. If/When NetFlix is directly connected to Verizon, then NetFlix would pay Verizon and not (eventually) Level 3 for data going to Verizon customers.
AVonGauss

1 recommendation

AVonGauss to Selenia

Premium Member

to Selenia
Verizon is not trying to double dip, they're trying to eliminate the middle layer (transit providers - L3, Cogent, etc).

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

1 recommendation

Selenia

Premium Member

A layer that normally someone else gets paid while VZ customers pay for them to do their job as last mile layer that they refuse to do after being paid once to do it unless they get paid twice. Thank you for backing up my point, sir!
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

AVonGauss

Premium Member

No, not even close... You do realize this was affecting more than just NetFlix traffic, right?
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103 to Ignite

Member

to Ignite
Don't take this the wrong way - this is a control and cost issue between Verizon, carriers like L3 and Netflix (could be really anybody).

'If' Verizon were to add more port cards (they're relatively cheap), they'd have to deal with the traffic - whether or not they want it (net neutrality anyone). If L3 is like the old days of ISP, they'll have to pay port charges + increased traffic charges to L3 for a service that they 'really' don't want on their network. As a result, they cap the throughput by not adding 'more' capacity than say any other carrier would have. This basically has Verizon sort of saying we're net neutral - as we treat all traffic the same. Facebook or Netflix, and pushing carriers/source to pay for dedicated extra capacity, which will also offset any perceived / competitive harm that it may do to FiOS.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to AVonGauss

Premium Member

to AVonGauss
How does Netflix get their data to Verizon? How do I get my data to anyplace I send it?

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

1 recommendation

Selenia to AVonGauss

Premium Member

to AVonGauss
Yes, alledgedly Youtube and others who deliver content bandwidth intensive enough to actually make use of any but the bottom service tiers. That is the problem. The internet is open with these transit providers distributing traffic to ISPs around the world as they do. Companies like Google and Netflix can afford to pay Verizon, Comcast, et al grudgingly to keep their businesses afloat. But what about upstarts? They may become unable to compete because they pay for transit but can't afford to pay each greedy ISP extortion for direct peering, making their service, no matter how innovative or high quality, artificially suck and unable to compete. Taking this a step further, if they do drive out transit providers and get their way with all direct peering, we will not even have internet as we know it. It will he fragmented with some content on 1 service or the other, like the days of AOL or Compuserve before the internet existed. I never want those days back. Even worse, unlike dial up, some ISPs are only available in certain areas, making some content not available at all in some areas. Remember how the available content was from all rich companies and never innovative? Prepare for those days again because upstarts don't have a prayer. Welcome to the dark AOL dial up ages....delivered at 100 mbps. Think I will take up a sport as my internet time will be a bore

Cheeze_It
@198.178.8.x

Cheeze_It to AVonGauss

Anon

to AVonGauss
Heh, you...really don't know how traffic works on the internet...do you...

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to AVonGauss

Premium Member

to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

If/When NetFlix is directly connected to Verizon, then NetFlix would pay Verizon and not (eventually) Level 3 for data going to Verizon customers.

The reality is that Verizon customers are paying Verizon for internet service AND indirectly paying Verizon to get Netflix content. It's called double-dipping.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError to en103

Member

to en103
Since Verizon has tons of under-used capacity with other networks, Verizon can also tell L3 and Netflix to re-route their excess traffic through alternate routes.

Whichever way things go, someone will end up paying for it. If Netflix manages to convince the FCC to make ISPs eat the cost, it will likely translate into extra-steep rounds of out-of-cycle rate hikes several times more expensive overall to the end-users than the peering deals.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

No, the ISP is charging what the market will bear, when there is practically no other reasonable choice available. They can only rake in so much in profits. There is a limit in what their customers can afford to pay.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss to Selenia

Premium Member

to Selenia
I guess that is a possibility, albeit a very unlikely one. The last time a part of the Internet went gray or dark I believe was during a peering dispute between Level 3 and Cogent...
AVonGauss

AVonGauss to jmn1207

Premium Member

to jmn1207
So by your logic, all hosting providers should not incur any transit or data delivery expenses as those have already been paid by residential customers?

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia to AVonGauss

Premium Member

to AVonGauss
Let's hope so. I was only illustrating what could happen if VZ and company fully have their way. This is but one reason we need to take Netflix, Level3, Cogent, Google, etc's side to keep them in line before it gets to a point they can even think of making such madness ensue. I hope you're right, but these big telecoms have been getting away with murder almost, with market control bought with paid legislation paid for by consumers and tax dollars.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss

Premium Member

I don't personally know if its a good idea for residential ISPs to be in the "transit business" per se, but I also can't think of a good reason why to deny it either. Having a third party (i.e. L3, Cogent) in the middle sounds good in theory, but in practice its had just as many problems. At least with the direct connections, there's one less party to blame when there are issues.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

1 recommendation

Selenia

Premium Member

It isn't. This case shows what a conflict of interest it is. They degrade links to the at large internet to force tolls for transit to their paying customers. They are not providing true transit even. Just transit into their own network with the degraded links that forced such a deal, not to the internet at large like Cogent, Level 3, etc.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

1 recommendation

morbo to WhatNow

Member

to WhatNow
said by WhatNow:

You get what you pay for.

Apparently, that's not true if you are a Verizon FiOS or DSL customer.

catchingup
@135.23.225.x

catchingup to AVonGauss

Anon

to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

So by your logic, all hosting providers should not incur any transit or data delivery expenses as those have already been paid by residential customers?

No, that is your flawed logic. He never said anything such thing.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss

Premium Member

Maybe you can explain it better then, when should a hosting provider need to pay for delivery and when should they not?
AVonGauss

AVonGauss to Selenia

Premium Member

to Selenia
... the links weren't degraded, the amount of traffic increased to the point it surpassed the existing links capacity and agreements. Sounds like a word game, but its a rather important distinction.
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY

plat2on1 to AVonGauss

Member

to AVonGauss
when the service that he personally likes is affected duh

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

1 recommendation

Selenia to AVonGauss

Premium Member

to AVonGauss
It boils down to make little difference though you are technically right. But who pays Verizon for X speed tier? The customers. I say they have an agreement to keep there and not just to websites that agree to pay them for peering that happen to be popular. Level 3 and Cogent are perfectly able and willing to bring them the content and enough capacity. Verizon is unwilling to upgrade their links to meet the demand of their own customers unless the content company pays them again for peering. It's just plain wrong. Gives me more reason to never have Verzon as my ISP again if I can help it, other than my horrible experience when I lived in a small town.
Coolbrz
join:2002-12-16
Kane, PA

Coolbrz to AVonGauss

Member

to AVonGauss
This is about as stupid of a comment that i think i've seen on here.

So by your theory, Verizon (or my case comcast) should be paying for my connection to send me the data i want.

I currently have 25Meg download and can saturate that if i wanted to, so again using your logic (lol) to upgrade my line to 100M i should ask comcast to foot that bill as they are sending it me.

catchingup
@135.23.225.x

catchingup to AVonGauss

Anon

to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

Maybe you can explain it better then, when should a hosting provider need to pay for delivery and when should they not?

Hosting providers have a combination of transit and some level of peering. Traffic via peering most of the time is SFI. Anything going via transit has a cost. This isn't difficult to understand at all. The comment you made above was completely distorting what he said and was shifting the logic into ridiculous nonsense.
« Blame the customers
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next