On Apr 28, 2014 7:37 AM, "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote:
Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're
billing two customers for the same byte
Where your statement is short sighted I already explained partly in
saying
its too difficult to decide who gets a free ride and who gets the bill so I challenge you to propose an actual policy that prohibits charging for peering that doesn't have major unintended consequences. All in all I am sort of disappointed to find so few rational opinions around here. One of the few decent articles I have read on it is here:
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comca...
I think if you make a law that says all content providers big and small
get
free pipes and the residential subscribers of broadband must pay the tab the cost of broadband in the US compared to the rest of the world skyrocket.
No one is suggesting that all content providers get a 'free ride', let alone a legally-mandated free ride. Giving last-mile providers an implicit (if not explicit) OK to bill providers whose content happens to be popular with the last-mile providers' customers sets a horrible precedent.
Content providers have infrastructure costs, just like last-mile ISPs. Your arguments seem to ignore that minor point. Those cost cover different
deliberately things than what a last-mile ISP would need to cover, but they have costs nonetheless. They either pay other providers to haul their bits to other networks or they build infrastructure to locations that allow them to peer with providers. That could be to a mutually-agreed meet point for private peering, or it could be to an exchange point to peer with other providers who have a presence at the same exchange point.
Look at the Peering DB. In general, you will see that content networks
have more open peering policies than eyeball networks. It's in their best interests to get as topologically close to their consumers as possible. Some transit networks do the same, but that's a much more variable picture.
jms
I'm sorry but all this talk of lemonade stands and metaphors is giving me a headache. It really is a simple case of supply and demand. You have four actors who may or may not be the same entity ( example: transit provider who is also your isp ). 1) User Who shops around to get the best isp who has the access he wants at the best price. This user does not need to know about transit and peering agreements because if they can not get their content they should, in a perfect world, choose an ISP who will. 2) ISP - For User / Content provider An ISP should recognize the needs of their customers and seek out the best relationships that will keep their customers paying them. These relationships should be formed out of mutual self interest either for pay or swap arrangements. The ISP should terminate / form new relationships with other providers that are in the best interest of their customers because their business should depend on being the best ISP available and keeping their customer's happy. 3) Transit provider A transit provider who may or may not be one or both of the ISPs of a user or content provider. Should form as many interesting and useful relationships to make themselves attractive to other providers. If they aren't providing competitive offers no ISP or other provider would want to make arrangements with them and their business fails. 4) Content provider These are the people who have what the users want. Their offerings compel users to sign up to ISPs which pay for transit who allow access to content. Content providers should partner themselves with the best ISP(s) or transit providers that give their content the largest reach to the most users at the best price. Content providers should use their content and money to make the best arrangements for their business or it dies. They should not have to worry about being strong armed for being successful because the market should be self adjusting. Example: if transfer fees go up and a better contract can't be sourced or arranged either the content provider re-thinks their pricing model or their business dies and should die since it would no longer be sustainable. In all cases each actor is paying their way making relationships that are best for their business with the immediate link or links in the chain of communication for delivering content. At this point we have to assume it is cost prohibitive for all content providers to form direct end to end relationships with all or majority of all users. Unfortunately this nice friendly free market of opportunity isn't true and because of that you now have actors starting to abuse their position. Which based on history shouldn't be a real shock. In an alarmingly high number of cases a user only has one high speed ISP to choose from. This allows that ISP to play a game of chicken with everyone. Since users have lost the right to choose, because of reasons outside of their control, we are all going to if not already suffering. These type of single ISP only use cases leads to hard to prove artificial limitations that lead to arguments that go no where. Example: users who report Netflix has poor quality of service on their open ISP connection but good quality of service on a VPN running over that same connection because the VPN's ISP is running their business correctly. When last mile ISPs no longer have pressure or over-sight to maintain a business model that puts user's needs first, because a happy user is a returning user, you now have an entity who will do anything for a dollar as long as it can't be proved illegal for the moment. It also completely removes any incentive to upgrade as such ISP's real product transforms from the internet connectivity they provide their users to the now locked in users themselves. I would not be surprised if more money is now being spent maintaining/ supporting anti-competitive legislation than on network and infrastructure upgrades/costs. Transit providers, content providers, and other ISPs should be scared because if this goes on much longer you will now have the digital equivalent of the mutually assured destruction (MAD) policy which in the end everyone loses. Some points I want to make very clear: 1) Everyone SHOULD pay but no one should be forced to pay twice and their should be some anti-competitive checks/balance like we have for other areas of our lives. 2) Last mile ISPs should absolutely use their user base as a bargaining device only as long as they don't damage or reduce their primary goal which is to provide said users with internet connectivity. 3) In this day of technology and innovation there should be no reason why a user can't have choices. Plenty of regions have found a way to share. At the very least local government should work with their population to find a solution that suits their needs first and not only a private for-profit entity. This may be through offering incentives, fair access policies, or even full blown installs that anyone can offer service over. -Kris