The devil is in the details. Ken Florance (http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.html) paints a different picture in his blog, for example. As a manager at Comcast, can you refer the people on this list to any ISPs who do not have a history of congestion into your network? This question comes up about once a month, absent any good solutions, so insight would be appreciated. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:25 PM, McElearney, Kevin <Kevin_McElearney@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
On 7/29/14, 12:45 PM, "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -0000, "McElearney, Kevin" said:
(w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN).
Very true. But what we're discussing here is the *specific* case where eyecandystore's biggest challenge at delivering the experience is an external challenge, namely that $IP_PROVIDER's service sucks. It's particularly galling when $IP_PROVIDER's internal net is actually up to snuff, but they engage in shakedown tactics to upgrade peering points.
There is a great analysis by Dr Clark (MIT) and CAIDA which shows while there are some challenged paths and relationships between providers, this is the exception vs the rule. Using the “exceptions" are business decisions.
Performance is a two way street (as are shakedowns)
- Kevin