Level3: Six ISPs Degrading Traffic Intentionally to Get Paid...
Let it be noted that one Tuesday Morning links by Revcb
is a story in which C-net fact checks/speculates about the same blog post and comes to a different conclusion than Karl.
It is worth reading about the other side of this.
Here's a link
»www.cnet.com/news/level-3-accuse ··· D590a51e
actions · 2014-May-6 3:02 pm · (locked)
|reply to guppy_fish |
Re: Read this for Facts, Not Fiction
ISP's are responsible for the traffic their consumers request. The backbone providers are only responsible for taking that traffic and getting it to the POP of the ISP. If there is congestion there, it is at the request of the ISP consumers and thus the responsibility of the ISP to upgrade.
There is absolutely no difference in Netflix traffic if it comes from a server room sitting next to Hastings or a CND server sitting right next to the Comcast POP on Level 3's network. Either way, the same traffic is going to be going across that peering point to reach the consumers of Comcast that requested it. Not until a Comcast consumer request it will a single Netflix packet cross that peering point. Them implying anything different is a shear lie and yet another attempt at them trying to deflect blame.
actions · 2014-May-6 10:55 am · (locked)
|reply to jlivingood |
Re: Im mixed
You mean your consumers utilize 1/3 of your bandwidth utilizing a service called Netflix.
I stated before and was ignored by you and I will state it again.
If you do not like the amount of traffic YOUR consumers are using of the resource you are selling them to use, then find a way to discourage that use that is not against NN and is legal.
actions · 2014-May-6 10:49 am · (locked)
|reply to nekkidtruth | said by nekkidtruth:
The problem is, Netflix is the only one who's vocal about this issue right now.
Netflix traffic is 1/3 of peak Internet use - it is without precedent, so there's no one really similarly situated.--
actions · 2014-May-6 10:30 am · (locked)
Level3: This means war!!!
So what they are really saying is that they are pissed that Comcast and Netflix cut them out of the middle. Now they are going to stomp their feet and stick out their bottom lip.
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.
actions · 2014-May-6 10:11 am · (locked)
ieolusSupport The Clecs
|reply to cpsycho |
Re: Im mixed
said by cpsycho:
Comcast would back off then, for fear of losing customers to other providers.
The whole reason Comcast is in a position to bully Netflix (and any other content provider) is because in most cases there are NO other providers for their customers. Do ya get it?--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp
actions · 2014-May-6 9:32 am · (locked)
|reply to OSUGoose | said by OSUGoose:
What they (AT&T) fail to understand is that the 5% of other traffic is important as well, and is impacted just as much.
You're getting it completely wrong. AT&T absolutely does understand that there's 5% of traffic that's "innocent" and impacted. They simply don't care because the people that are being impacted have no alternative for Internet access.
edit: Even at prime time it's not 5% of non-Netflix traffic that's impacted it's over 65%. That's right, AT&T is willing to harm 65% of customer traffic to mess with Netflix.
said by OSUGoose:
Thats the whole concept of free interconnect
Your description is a distortion and not accurate. "equal" isn't a required element of peering and never has been. There are many reasons to enter into a settlement free peering agreement. And it's completely irrelevant here because there is no transit and equal arrangement possible with a residential ISP.
If the connection endpoint is in your network you should bear the cost. Simple. Easy. Endpoints in residential ISPs networks (called customers) pay their bills and it should cover the cost of providing proper access to the rest of the Internet.
actions · 2014-May-6 9:22 am · (locked)
The law of supply and demand.
It works heavily in your favor when you have the power to manipulate the supply.
actions · 2014-May-6 9:08 am · (locked)
|reply to cpsycho |
Re: Im mixed
Netflix is paying for a sufficient outbound connection, the issue is when that traverses L3's backbone to the interconnect with the end users ISP, lets say its AT&T.
Netflix is connected a 10Gigs yet AT&T is only taking in L3's traffic at 1 Gig which is 90% used. L3 has asked AT&T to increase it to say 10Gig, and AT&T wants paid to do that, since they see 95% of the traffic is a competing service. What they (AT&T) fail to understand is that the 5% of other traffic is important as well, and is impacted just as much.
The current model now is this: Netflix needs to send 100GB of data to their end user, They pay L3 to serve it up, paying lets say $10.00. L3 transports the data on the backbone and links up to the end users ISP: AT&T. L3 pays AT&T $5.00 to pass on the traffic. In a unrelated transport, AT&T needs to send traffic onto L3's backbone for lets say a OneDrive customer uploading 100GBs, AT&T pays L3 $5.00 to hand it off, making the net transactions $0.00.
Thats the whole concept of free interconnect, the data back and forth will balance out, if not messed with, having both bare a near equal cost to move the traffic around.
actions · 2014-May-6 9:01 am · (locked)
|reply to nekkidtruth |
Give them time.
actions · 2014-May-6 8:25 am · (locked)