Blake, I'm not sure what the relationship between what an access network sells has to do with how their peering is done. I realize that everyone's favorite target is Comcast right now, but would anyone bat an eye over AT&T making the same requirement since they have much more in the way of transit traffic? I don't think anyone forced Level 3 into their peering agreement with Comcast and it was (roughly) symmetrical for years before Level 3 was contracted by Netflix. Shouldn't Level 3 gone to Comcast and told them they needed to change their peering or get a different contract? Why was Cogent able to maintain (roughly) symmetrical traffic with Comcast when they were the primary path for Netflix to Comcast users? Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
Oh, I'm not proposing symmetrical connectivity at all. I'm just supporting the argument that in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric when the overwhelming majority of what they're selling (and have been selling for over a decade) is asymmetric connectivity. Their traffic imbalance is, arguably, their own doing.
How residential ISPs recoup costs (or simply increase revenue/profit) is another question entirely. I think the most insightful comment in this discussion was made by Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym), when he states that ISPs have several options to increase revenue A) Increase price of their product, B) Implement usage restrictions, or C) Charge someone else/Make someone else your customer. I think he successfully argues that option C may be the best. As we've seen, the wireless market in the US went for option B. We've yet to see where the wireline market will go.
Of course, the market would ideally keep ISPs' demands for revenue/profit in check and we'd all reach a satisfactory solution. One of the arguments, one I happen to support, in this thread is that there is not a free market for internet connectivity in many parts of the US. If there was, I believe Comcast would be focusing on how to provide a balance between the best product at the lowest cost and not on how they can monetize their paying customers in order to increase profits. I appreciate honesty; When a service provider advertises X Mbps Internet speeds, I expect they can deliver on their claims (to the whole Internet, and not just the portions of it they've decided). I understand congestion, overselling, etc. But choosing which portions of the internet work well and which don't is a lot more like censorship than service.
--Blake