Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/ Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap. With Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway...
A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thought to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry yours and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under modern realities.
I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed". Not saying it's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet". Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes settlement-free peering viable: "The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was sending to the other was roughly equivalent." ...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix needs to buck up: "Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with sufficient quality." But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really anything more nuanced here than: 1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life). 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market. 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on. 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customers' usage. How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something? Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized "Open Internet" rules don't help on that front. Now, Comcast is free to leverage their customers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting here. Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point. Considering the lack of broadband options for large parts of the US, though, it seems that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real recourse while that plays out. -- Hugo ________________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/ Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something?
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing. This diagram best describes the relationship (ignoring pricing): http://www.digitalsociety.org/files/gou/free-and-paid-peering.png "Content provider" would be Netflix and Comcast would be Broadband ISP 1. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca>wrote:
Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap. With Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway...
A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thought to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry yours and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under modern realities.
I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed". Not saying it's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet".
Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes settlement-free peering viable: "The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was sending to the other was roughly equivalent."
...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix needs to buck up: "Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with sufficient quality."
But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really anything more nuanced here than:
1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life). 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market. 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on. 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customers' usage.
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something?
Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized "Open Internet" rules don't help on that front. Now, Comcast is free to leverage their customers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting here. Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point. Considering the lack of broadband options for large parts of the US, though, it seems that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real recourse while that plays out.
-- Hugo
________________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Larry Sheldon < LarrySheldon@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/
Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
...but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast...
Which, from the outside, does appear to have been the case.
...then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.
Which I don't believe was a problem? Again, outside looking in, but the appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast was refusing to upgrade capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was doing the same. So:
I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.
The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion.
Are we talking here about transport between Netflix's POPs and Comcast's? I definitely don't expect Comcast to foot the bill for transport between the two, and if Netflix was asking for that I'm with you that would be out of line. If there are existing exchange points, though, would it not be reasonable to expect each side to up their capacity at those points?
Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing.
The "double-dip" reference was to charging both the content provider and the ISP's own customer to deliver the same bits. If the traffic from Netflix was via Netflix's transit provider and Comcast then again was looking to bill Netflix to accept the traffic, we'd hit double billing. I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the links. Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering was happening at IXs (haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem reasonable for each party to handle their own capacity to the peering points and call it even. No? -- Hugo ________________________________ From: Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:23 PM To: Hugo Slabbert Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something?
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing. This diagram best describes the relationship (ignoring pricing): http://www.digitalsociety.org/files/gou/free-and-paid-peering.png "Content provider" would be Netflix and Comcast would be Broadband ISP 1. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca<mailto:hslabbert@stargate.ca>> wrote: Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap. With Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway...
A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thought to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry yours and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under modern realities.
I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed". Not saying it's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet". Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes settlement-free peering viable: "The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was sending to the other was roughly equivalent." ...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix needs to buck up: "Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with sufficient quality." But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really anything more nuanced here than: 1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life). 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market. 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on. 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customers' usage. How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something? Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized "Open Internet" rules don't help on that front. Now, Comcast is free to leverage their customers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting here. Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point. Considering the lack of broadband options for large parts of the US, though, it seems that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real recourse while that plays out. -- Hugo ________________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org>> on behalf of Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net<mailto:LarrySheldon@cox.net>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/ Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
If it were through a switch at the exchange it would be on each of them to individually upgrade their capacity to it but at the capacities they are at it they are beyond what would make sense financially to go over an exchange switch so they would connect directly instead. It's likely more along the lines of needing several 100G ports as Netflix is over 30% of peak usage traffic in North America: "Netflix (31.6%) holds its ground as the leading downstream application in North America and together with YouTube (18.6%) accounts for over 50% of downstream traffic on fixed networks." (source https://www.sandvine.com/trends/global-internet-phenomena/ ) That amount of data is massive scale. I don't see it as double dipping because each party is buying the pipe they are using. I am buying a 15Mbps pipe to my home but just because we are communicating over the Internet doesn't mean the money I am paying covers the cost of your connection too. You must still buy your own pipe in the same way Netflix would. I covered this scenario in more detail in my post "What Net Neutrality should and should not cover" but if you expand on the assumption that paying for an internet connection also pays for the direct connection of every party who you exchange traffic with then you have a scenario where only half the people connected to the Internet should have to pay at all for their connection because any scenario where people simply buy their own pipe would be considered "double billing". The cost for residential broadband is high enough in the US without a policy like that in place. If there is one policy that would keep poor families from being able to afford broadband it would be that one. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca>wrote:
...but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast...
Which, from the outside, does appear to have been the case.
...then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.
Which I don't believe was a problem? Again, outside looking in, but the appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast was refusing to upgrade capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was doing the same. So:
I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.
The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion.
Are we talking here about transport between Netflix's POPs and Comcast's? I definitely don't expect Comcast to foot the bill for transport between the two, and if Netflix was asking for that I'm with you that would be out of line. If there are existing exchange points, though, would it not be reasonable to expect each side to up their capacity at those points?
Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing.
The "double-dip" reference was to charging both the content provider and the ISP's own customer to deliver the same bits. If the traffic from Netflix was via Netflix's transit provider and Comcast then again was looking to bill Netflix to accept the traffic, we'd hit double billing.
I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the links. Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering was happening at IXs (haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem reasonable for each party to handle their own capacity to the peering points and call it even. No?
-- Hugo
________________________________ From: Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:23 PM To: Hugo Slabbert Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something?
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing.
This diagram best describes the relationship (ignoring pricing): http://www.digitalsociety.org/files/gou/free-and-paid-peering.png
"Content provider" would be Netflix and Comcast would be Broadband ISP 1.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca <mailto:hslabbert@stargate.ca>> wrote: Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap. With Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway...
A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thought to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry yours and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under modern realities.
I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed". Not saying it's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet".
Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes settlement-free peering viable: "The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was sending to the other was roughly equivalent."
...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix needs to buck up: "Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with sufficient quality."
But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really anything more nuanced here than:
1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life). 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market. 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on. 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customers' usage.
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something?
Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized "Open Internet" rules don't help on that front. Now, Comcast is free to leverage their customers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting here. Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point. Considering the lack of broadband options for large parts of the US, though, it seems that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real recourse while that plays out.
-- Hugo
________________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org>> on behalf of Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net<mailto:LarrySheldon@cox.net
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/
Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote:
That amount of data is massive scale. I don't see it as double dipping because each party is buying the pipe they are using. I am buying a 15Mbps pipe to my home but just because we are communicating over the Internet doesn't mean the money I am paying covers the cost of your connection too. You must still buy your own pipe in the same way Netflix would. I covered this scenario in more detail in my post "What Net Neutrality should and should not cover" but if you expand on the assumption that paying for an internet connection also pays for the direct connection of every party who you exchange traffic with then you have a scenario where only half the people connected to the Internet should have to pay at all for their connection because any scenario where people simply buy their own pipe would be considered "double billing".
The size of the pipes involved doesn't change the fundamental premise that double-dipping is involved. Comcast, et al want to be paid twice for the same traffic. The money I pay Verizon every month for my Fios connection, by itself, doesn't pay for the rest of their network, but take the millions of Fios customers as a whole, and the revenue stream is significant. We'll leave the government-mandated revenue stream out of the equation for now. Just about every ISP, and certainly all of the big ones, practice statistical multiplexing - there is always some amount of oversubscription at play. Add up the subscription speeds of every Fios customer, and the total ingress/egress capacity of Verizon's network, and the two numbers will not be equal - not by a long shot. While 100G linecards and optics are still very expensive, those costs will come down over time. Even at that, the cost of adding a 100G link between Big Network A and Big Network B is at most pennies per customer. jms
Apologies that I dropped offlist as I was out for the day. I think the bulk of my thoughts on this have already been covered by others since, including e.g. Matt's poor grandmother and her phone dilemma in the "What Net Neutrality should and should not cover" thread. Basically I think we're on the same page for the most part, with maybe some misunderstandings between us.
I covered this scenario in more detail in my post "What Net Neutrality should and should not cover" but if you expand on the assumption that paying for an internet connection also pays for the direct connection of every party who you exchange traffic with then you have a scenario where only half the people connected to the Internet should have to pay at all for their connection because any scenario where people simply buy their own pipe would be considered "double billing".
I don't think anyone on the Netflix^H^H^H^H^H^H $ContentProvider side of this was saying that $ContentProvider should get everything handed to them on a silver platter. $ContentProvider pays for transit sufficient to handle the traffic that their customers request. $EyeballNetwork's customers pay it for internet access, i.e. to deliver the content that they request, e.g. from $ContentProvider. That covers both directions here. Links between $ContentProvider's transit provider and $EyeballNetwork were getting congested, and $EyeballNetwork refuses to upgrade capacity. Where we were getting into the double-dip was $EyeballNetwork saying to $ContentProvide: "Hey, we know you already pay for transit, but you're gonna have to pay us as well if you want us to actually accept the traffic our customers requested". The alternate arrangement between $ContentProvider and $EyeballNetwork seems to be private peering, where again it would seem to be fair for each side to bring the needed transport and ports to peering points. In recent history, though, it seems that $EyeballNetwork came out ahead in that agreement somehow. Now, Tore brought up a good point on paid peering in cases where e.g. $EyeballNetwork is already exchanging traffic with $ContentProvider through existing peering or below their CDR on existing transit, and indeed it seems that was the case for $EyeballNetwork via peering with $CheapTransitProvider that $ContentProvider was using. But it seems that $EyeballNetwork was having a pissing match with $CheapTransitProvider and refusing to upgrade ports. "Okay", says $ContentProvider. "How about we just peer directly." "Sounds great," says $EyeballNetwork. "Since we have to allocate capacity for this discrete from our existing peering capacity, you'll need to foot the bill for that." "Huh?" says $ContentProvider. "This could have been fixed by you increasing your peering capacity to match the traffic volume your users are requesting, but you didn't want to do that because of your tiff with $CheapTransitProvider. Tell me again why we're paying for your side of this *in addition* to our own when we're only going this route because of a decision *you* made?" "Because you need to reach our customers, and we're the only path to them, so we have leverage." *blank stare* "So you're willing to give your customers crappy service because your customers don't have alternate options and you think we need this more than you do?" "That's a possibility." "I hate you." "I know; sign here please." But, again, this is outside looking in. For now, I'll pick up a copy of Bill Norton's Internet Peering book as per Bob's suggestion, for some light Sunday night reading. Cheers, -- Hugo ________________________________ From: Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:45 AM To: Hugo Slabbert Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post If it were through a switch at the exchange it would be on each of them to individually upgrade their capacity to it but at the capacities they are at it they are beyond what would make sense financially to go over an exchange switch so they would connect directly instead. It's likely more along the lines of needing several 100G ports as Netflix is over 30% of peak usage traffic in North America: "Netflix (31.6%) holds its ground as the leading downstream application in North America and together with YouTube (18.6%) accounts for over 50% of downstream traffic on fixed networks." (source https://www.sandvine.com/trends/global-internet-phenomena/ ) That amount of data is massive scale. I don't see it as double dipping because each party is buying the pipe they are using. I am buying a 15Mbps pipe to my home but just because we are communicating over the Internet doesn't mean the money I am paying covers the cost of your connection too. You must still buy your own pipe in the same way Netflix would. I covered this scenario in more detail in my post "What Net Neutrality should and should not cover" but if you expand on the assumption that paying for an internet connection also pays for the direct connection of every party who you exchange traffic with then you have a scenario where only half the people connected to the Internet should have to pay at all for their connection because any scenario where people simply buy their own pipe would be considered "double billing". The cost for residential broadband is high enough in the US without a policy like that in place. If there is one policy that would keep poor families from being able to afford broadband it would be that one. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca<mailto:hslabbert@stargate.ca>> wrote:
...but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast...
Which, from the outside, does appear to have been the case.
...then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.
Which I don't believe was a problem? Again, outside looking in, but the appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast was refusing to upgrade capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was doing the same. So:
I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.
The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion.
Are we talking here about transport between Netflix's POPs and Comcast's? I definitely don't expect Comcast to foot the bill for transport between the two, and if Netflix was asking for that I'm with you that would be out of line. If there are existing exchange points, though, would it not be reasonable to expect each side to up their capacity at those points?
Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing.
The "double-dip" reference was to charging both the content provider and the ISP's own customer to deliver the same bits. If the traffic from Netflix was via Netflix's transit provider and Comcast then again was looking to bill Netflix to accept the traffic, we'd hit double billing. I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the links. Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering was happening at IXs (haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem reasonable for each party to handle their own capacity to the peering points and call it even. No? -- Hugo ________________________________ From: Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com<mailto:jnanog@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:23 PM To: Hugo Slabbert Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something?
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing. This diagram best describes the relationship (ignoring pricing): http://www.digitalsociety.org/files/gou/free-and-paid-peering.png "Content provider" would be Netflix and Comcast would be Broadband ISP 1. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca<mailto:hslabbert@stargate.ca><mailto:hslabbert@stargate.ca<mailto:hslabbert@stargate.ca>>> wrote: Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap. With Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway...
A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thought to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry yours and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under modern realities.
I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed". Not saying it's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet". Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes settlement-free peering viable: "The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was sending to the other was roughly equivalent." ...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix needs to buck up: "Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with sufficient quality." But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really anything more nuanced here than: 1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life). 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market. 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on. 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customers' usage. How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something? Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized "Open Internet" rules don't help on that front. Now, Comcast is free to leverage their customers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting here. Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point. Considering the lack of broadband options for large parts of the US, though, it seems that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real recourse while that plays out. -- Hugo ________________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org><mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org>>> on behalf of Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net<mailto:LarrySheldon@cox.net><mailto:LarrySheldon@cox.net<mailto:LarrySheldon@cox.net>>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org><mailto:nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/ Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
$CheapTransitProvider > $EyeballNetwork's because there is so much
Here is a quote I made in the other thread around the same time you were sending this: "I also think the practice of paying an intermediary ISP a per Mbps rate in order to get to a last mile ISP over a settlement free agreement is also a bit disingenuous in cases where the amount of traffic is sufficient enough to fill multiple links. Theoretically there are many times where the intermediary ISP can hand off the traffic to a last mile ISP in exactly the same building they received it in so they have very few of the costs of actually delivering the traffic yet are the only party receiving money from the content provider for delivery. This arrangement makes sense when the traffic to the last mile ISP is a percentage of one link but after enough links are involved the intermediary ISP is serving no real other purpose than as a loophole used to circumvent paid peering fees (right or wrong)." I think we are in agreement that $EyeballNetwork's customers pay it for internet access and $ContentProvider should pay for their own pipes. But where we diverge is with $CheapTransitProvider. At least for the purpose of traffic following the path of $ContentProvider traffic involved the only real purpose of the relationship with $CheapTransitProvider is a loophole to get around paying $EyeballNetwork. They are able to charge ridiculously low delivery prices because traffic is only on their network for just long enough to say it touched and should now be considered settlement free. It's little more than a cheap trick and it makes them sort of the Cash4Gold of the Internet. I can completely understand why $EyeballNetwork would tell $CheapTransitProvider they no longer choose to have a settlement free agreement and they must buy future ports. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca>wrote:
Apologies that I dropped offlist as I was out for the day. I think the bulk of my thoughts on this have already been covered by others since, including e.g. Matt's poor grandmother and her phone dilemma in the "What Net Neutrality should and should not cover" thread.
Basically I think we're on the same page for the most part, with maybe some misunderstandings between us.
I covered this scenario in more detail in my post "What Net Neutrality should and should not cover" but if you expand on the assumption that paying for an internet connection also pays for the direct connection of every party who you exchange traffic with then you have a scenario where only half the people connected to the Internet should have to pay at all for their connection because any scenario where people simply buy their own pipe would be considered "double billing".
I don't think anyone on the Netflix^H^H^H^H^H^H $ContentProvider side of this was saying that $ContentProvider should get everything handed to them on a silver platter. $ContentProvider pays for transit sufficient to handle the traffic that their customers request. $EyeballNetwork's customers pay it for internet access, i.e. to deliver the content that they request, e.g. from $ContentProvider. That covers both directions here. Links between $ContentProvider's transit provider and $EyeballNetwork were getting congested, and $EyeballNetwork refuses to upgrade capacity. Where we were getting into the double-dip was $EyeballNetwork saying to $ContentProvide: "Hey, we know you already pay for transit, but you're gonna have to pay us as well if you want us to actually accept the traffic our customers requested".
The alternate arrangement between $ContentProvider and $EyeballNetwork seems to be private peering, where again it would seem to be fair for each side to bring the needed transport and ports to peering points. In recent history, though, it seems that $EyeballNetwork came out ahead in that agreement somehow. Now, Tore brought up a good point on paid peering in cases where e.g. $EyeballNetwork is already exchanging traffic with $ContentProvider through existing peering or below their CDR on existing transit, and indeed it seems that was the case for $EyeballNetwork via peering with $CheapTransitProvider that $ContentProvider was using. But it seems that $EyeballNetwork was having a pissing match with $CheapTransitProvider and refusing to upgrade ports.
"Okay", says $ContentProvider. "How about we just peer directly." "Sounds great," says $EyeballNetwork. "Since we have to allocate capacity for this discrete from our existing peering capacity, you'll need to foot the bill for that." "Huh?" says $ContentProvider. "This could have been fixed by you increasing your peering capacity to match the traffic volume your users are requesting, but you didn't want to do that because of your tiff with $CheapTransitProvider. Tell me again why we're paying for your side of this *in addition* to our own when we're only going this route because of a decision *you* made?" "Because you need to reach our customers, and we're the only path to them, so we have leverage." *blank stare* "So you're willing to give your customers crappy service because your customers don't have alternate options and you think we need this more than you do?" "That's a possibility." "I hate you." "I know; sign here please."
But, again, this is outside looking in. For now, I'll pick up a copy of Bill Norton's Internet Peering book as per Bob's suggestion, for some light Sunday night reading.
Cheers,
-- Hugo
________________________________ From: Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:45 AM To: Hugo Slabbert Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
If it were through a switch at the exchange it would be on each of them to individually upgrade their capacity to it but at the capacities they are at it they are beyond what would make sense financially to go over an exchange switch so they would connect directly instead. It's likely more along the lines of needing several 100G ports as Netflix is over 30% of peak usage traffic in North America:
"Netflix (31.6%) holds its ground as the leading downstream application in North America and together with YouTube (18.6%) accounts for over 50% of downstream traffic on fixed networks." (source https://www.sandvine.com/trends/global-internet-phenomena/ )
That amount of data is massive scale. I don't see it as double dipping because each party is buying the pipe they are using. I am buying a 15Mbps pipe to my home but just because we are communicating over the Internet doesn't mean the money I am paying covers the cost of your connection too. You must still buy your own pipe in the same way Netflix would. I covered this scenario in more detail in my post "What Net Neutrality should and should not cover" but if you expand on the assumption that paying for an internet connection also pays for the direct connection of every party who you exchange traffic with then you have a scenario where only half the people connected to the Internet should have to pay at all for their connection because any scenario where people simply buy their own pipe would be considered "double billing".
The cost for residential broadband is high enough in the US without a policy like that in place. If there is one policy that would keep poor families from being able to afford broadband it would be that one.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca <mailto:hslabbert@stargate.ca>> wrote:
...but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast...
Which, from the outside, does appear to have been the case.
...then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.
Which I don't believe was a problem? Again, outside looking in, but the appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast was refusing to upgrade capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was doing the same. So:
I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.
The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion.
Are we talking here about transport between Netflix's POPs and Comcast's? I definitely don't expect Comcast to foot the bill for transport between the two, and if Netflix was asking for that I'm with you that would be out of line. If there are existing exchange points, though, would it not be reasonable to expect each side to up their capacity at those points?
Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing.
The "double-dip" reference was to charging both the content provider and the ISP's own customer to deliver the same bits. If the traffic from Netflix was via Netflix's transit provider and Comcast then again was looking to bill Netflix to accept the traffic, we'd hit double billing.
I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the links. Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering was happening at IXs (haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem reasonable for each party to handle their own capacity to the peering points and call it even. No?
-- Hugo
________________________________ From: Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com<mailto:jnanog@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:23 PM To: Hugo Slabbert Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something?
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing.
This diagram best describes the relationship (ignoring pricing): http://www.digitalsociety.org/files/gou/free-and-paid-peering.png
"Content provider" would be Netflix and Comcast would be Broadband ISP 1.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca <mailto:hslabbert@stargate.ca><mailto:hslabbert@stargate.ca<mailto: hslabbert@stargate.ca>>> wrote: Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap. With Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway...
A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thought to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry yours and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under modern realities.
I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed". Not saying it's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet".
Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes settlement-free peering viable: "The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was sending to the other was roughly equivalent."
...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix needs to buck up: "Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with sufficient quality."
But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really anything more nuanced here than:
1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life). 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market. 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on. 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customers' usage.
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something?
Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized "Open Internet" rules don't help on that front. Now, Comcast is free to leverage their customers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting here. Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point. Considering the lack of broadband options for large parts of the US, though, it seems that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real recourse while that plays out.
-- Hugo
________________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org
<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org>>> on behalf of Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net<mailto:LarrySheldon@cox.net <mailto:LarrySheldon@cox.net<mailto:LarrySheldon@cox.net>>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org><mailto:nanog@nanog.org<mailto: nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/
Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com> wrote:
Here is a quote I made in the other thread around the same time you were sending this:
"I also think the practice of paying an intermediary ISP a per Mbps rate in order to get to a last mile ISP over a settlement free agreement is also a bit disingenuous in cases where the amount of traffic is sufficient enough to fill multiple links. Theoretically there are many times where the intermediary ISP can hand off the traffic to a last mile ISP in exactly the same building they received it in so they have very few of the costs of actually delivering the traffic yet are the only party receiving money from the content provider for delivery. This arrangement makes sense when the traffic to the last mile ISP is a percentage of one link but after enough links are involved the intermediary ISP is serving no real other purpose than as a loophole used to circumvent paid peering fees (right or wrong)."
But that scenario only applies where the content network has carried the traffic to the same building as the eyeball network, such that it really does just go from the content provider, into the cheapTransit router, and then right back out to the eyeball network. At that point, the content provider and eyeball network are paying roughly commensurate amounts for their infrastructure costs; the content provider to get the data to that common location, and the eyeball network to get it from that location back to the customers who requested it. I'm not sure why you think it's a loophole of any sort; if anything, it's an anti-loophole, as the most efficient answer would be for the content network and eyeball network to directly interconnect, having each hauled circuits to this point in common--but instead, due to policies, an intermediary is forced into the picture. And your understanding of transit seems to be tenuous at best. You say "are the only party receiving money from the content provider for delivery" as though it's a bad thing, or some unusual circumstance. This is exactly what transit is. I pay an upstream provider to carry my route advertisements and bits to the rest of the world, regardless of how near or far it is. You do the same thing as a broadband customer; you pay one provider for access, regardless of how many content providers you pull down content from. It sounds like you would advocate a model where every content source pays every eyeball network that requests its content, and every broadband subscriber pays to every network it requests content from, rather than the current model of paying one upstream transit provider for connectivity to the rest of the internet. Is that really the case? Is that really what you're advocating for?
I think we are in agreement that $EyeballNetwork's customers pay it for internet access and $ContentProvider should pay for their own pipes. But where we diverge is with $CheapTransitProvider.
OK, how about we substitute "NotSoCheapTransitProvider" into the equation. Now, does that make the situation any different in your eyes? Or do you still feel that fundamentally transit is only something that eyeball networks can pay for, that content networks must not pay a single upstream, but must instead pay every eyeball network separately, regardless of how inefficient and expensive that would be?
$CheapTransitProvider > $EyeballNetwork's because there is so much
At least for the purpose of traffic following the path of $ContentProvider traffic involved the only real purpose of the relationship with $CheapTransitProvider is a loophole to get around paying $EyeballNetwork. They are able to charge ridiculously low delivery prices because traffic is only on their network for just long enough to say it touched and should now be considered settlement free. It's little more than a cheap trick and it makes them sort of the Cash4Gold of the Internet. I can completely understand why $EyeballNetwork would tell $CheapTransitProvider they no longer choose to have a settlement free agreement and they must buy future ports.
And in that model, I think it would be entirely correct for the content provider to either deny access to their content for users of ExtortionistEyeballNetwork, or to charge them additional for access to the content, to offset the increased costs of paying for the ports to that network. After all, unlike your flawed traffic flow, it's not the content network pushing bits at the eyeball network; it's the eyeball network sucking the bits down from the content provider. If the eyeball network feels that volume of traffic is problematic for them, such that they can't afford to augment capacity, the clear answer is for the content providers to help out the poor, congested eyeball networks by reducing the bitrate of content so that those links won't be congested anymore. Serve up HD streams to networks that work cooperatively to augment capacity for their users; for networks that won't cover their share of the costs of augmenting, simply serve lower and lower bitrate streams to fit within the available link capacity, with a little banner across the top alerting the consumer that their experience is degraded due to their provider not adequately installing infrastructure to handle the consumer's requested traffic.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugo Slabbert" <hslabbert@stargate.ca>
I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the links. Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering was happening at IXs (haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem reasonable for each party to handle their own capacity to the peering points and call it even. No?
And the answer is: at whose instance (to use an old Bell term) is that traffic moving. The answer is "at the instance of the eyeball's customers". So there's no call for the eyeball to charge the provider for it. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
On 04/27/2014 06:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
From: "Hugo Slabbert" <hslabbert@stargate.ca> I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the links. And the answer is: at whose instance (to use an old Bell term) is that
----- Original Message ----- traffic moving.
The answer is "at the instance of the eyeball's customers".
So there's no call for the eyeball to charge the provider for it.
Now, Jay, I don't often disagree with you, but today it occurred to me the business case here (I've had to put on my businessman's hat far too frequently lately, in dealing with trying to make a data center operation profitable, or at least break-even). This should be taken more as a 'devil's advocate' post more than anything else, and if I missed someone else in the thread making the same point, my apologies to the Department of Redundancy Department. Sure, the content provider is paying for their transit, and the eyeball customer is paying for their transit. But the content provider is further charging the eyeball's customer for the content, and thus is making money off of the eyeball network's pipes. Think like a businessman for a moment instead of like an operator. Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, by the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be. How many mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list? Well, in this case it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer list. The argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, disguising the real, profit-sharing, motive.
On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, by the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be. How many mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list? Well, in this case it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer list. The argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, disguising the real, profit-sharing, motive.
However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for video. In addition, they may be losing more video subscribers due to netflix. In reality, Netflix is direct competition to Comcast's video branch. Jack
On 04/28/2014 02:23 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as getting a piece of the action....
However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for video. In addition, they may be losing more video subscribers due to netflix. In reality, Netflix is direct competition to Comcast's video branch.
That's exactly right. But it somehow sounds better to blame it on the bandwidth consumed.
Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, by the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be. How many mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list? Well, in this case it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer list. The argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, disguising the real, profit-sharing, motive.
However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for video. In addition, they may be losing more video subscribers due to netflix. In reality, Netflix is direct competition to Comcast's video branch.
Which is why many policy oriented folks urge "separation of content from carriage" - i.e., you can't be in both businesses, or at least there needs to be a "Chinese wall" between the two businesses - otherwise the edge providers have both an inherent conflict of interest and a position that allows for monopoly abuse. The original FCC Computer Inquiry II proscribed just such a separation for the Internet business - but defined the line as being between local loop (e.g., copper) and "information services" - and defined IP transport as an "information service." Great if you're trying to protect the nascent Internet carriers from abuse by Ma Bell (though just try to buy an unbundled local loop these days); not so great for protecting Internet content providers from broadband carriers. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be.
...which turns the eyeball network provider into a gatekeeper. I think the clearest comment on this so far has been from Kristopher Doyen in the "What Net Neutrality should and should not cover" thread, which goes into players abusing their position in the market to extract additional revenue with stuff like this. Packets are packets are packets; aside from a sense of entitlement, why should the eyeball network provider get "a piece of the action" simply because the packets are revenue-generating for a 3rd party? This incurs a massive additional barrier to entry for any business that depends on the internet for their income, as now their revenue has to not only cover their own overhead and profits but also need to fund additional profits for ANY eyeball network provider that believes they're entitled to a "piece of the action". Why should I subsidize your business? E.g. I sell a widget on my website. An eyeball network provider's customer visits my website to purchase some widgets. "Hey", says eyeball network operator, "you're making money off of packets traversing my network! Pay up!" I know I've shifted this a bit from revenue-generating streaming content to a generic e-commerce situation, but how is that different except for the scale of traffic? If the eyeball network provider sees fit to charge Netflix $x/Gbps because of the $y/Gbps that Netflix is making from that traffic, the call on when to charge rests solely with the eyeball network operator. If my widget ecommerce store makes $1000y/Gbps because the traffic is small but revenue high, getting "a piece of the action" could mean $1000x/Gbps because there is more value "per packet". -- Hugo On Mon 2014-Apr-28 10:05:06 -0700, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
On 04/27/2014 06:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
From: "Hugo Slabbert" <hslabbert@stargate.ca> I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the links. And the answer is: at whose instance (to use an old Bell term) is that
----- Original Message ----- traffic moving.
The answer is "at the instance of the eyeball's customers".
So there's no call for the eyeball to charge the provider for it.
Now, Jay, I don't often disagree with you, but today it occurred to me the business case here (I've had to put on my businessman's hat far too frequently lately, in dealing with trying to make a data center operation profitable, or at least break-even). This should be taken more as a 'devil's advocate' post more than anything else, and if I missed someone else in the thread making the same point, my apologies to the Department of Redundancy Department.
Sure, the content provider is paying for their transit, and the eyeball customer is paying for their transit. But the content provider is further charging the eyeball's customer for the content, and thus is making money off of the eyeball network's pipes. Think like a businessman for a moment instead of like an operator.
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, by the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be. How many mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list? Well, in this case it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer list. The argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, disguising the real, profit-sharing, motive.
On 14-04-27 02:58, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
Which I don't believe was a problem? Again, outside looking in, but the appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast was refusing to upgrade capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was doing the same. So:
Funny how that problem was magically solved so rapidly the minute the deal was inked. Seems to me like Comcast was rate limiting IP ranges and removed the rate limit once the deal was inked. This was all about politics/business, not about network management. Also interesting how other ISPs have no problem with Netflix.
On Apr 26, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com> wrote:
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something?
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing.
Beyond that, there’s a more subtle argument also going on about whether $EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to $CONTENT_A and less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method for encouraging subscribers to select $CONTENT_A over $CONTENT_B by affecting the relative performance. This becomes much stickier when you face the reality that in many places, $EYEBALL_PROVIDER has an effective monopoly as the only player choosing to offer services at a useful level of bandwidth/etc. (If that). Owen
On 04/27/2014 05:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Beyond that, there’s a more subtle argument also going on about whether $EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to $CONTENT_A and less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method for encouraging subscribers to select $CONTENT_A over $CONTENT_B by affecting the relative performance. This becomes much stickier when you face the reality that in many places, $EYEBALL_PROVIDER has an effective monopoly as the only player choosing to offer services at a useful level of bandwidth/etc. (If that).
Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue with their crappy last mile service that is shameful for a supposed first world country? Cue up Randy on why this is all such a painful joke. Mike
Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue with their crappy last mile
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free access to the Internet paid for by residential subscribers what do you think it would do to the price of broadband? On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
On 04/27/2014 05:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Beyond that, there’s a more subtle argument also going on about whether $EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to $CONTENT_A and less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method for encouraging subscribers to select $CONTENT_A over $CONTENT_B by affecting the relative performance. This becomes much stickier when you face the reality that in many places, $EYEBALL_PROVIDER has an effective monopoly as the only player choosing to offer services at a useful level of bandwidth/etc. (If that).
Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue with their crappy last mile service that is shameful for a supposed first world country?
Cue up Randy on why this is all such a painful joke.
Mike
Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue with their crappy last mile
* jnanog@gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free access to the Internet paid for by residential subscribers what do you think it would do to the price of broadband?
Lower it? Right now broadband providers pay a transit provider who then get paid by content providers to carry the bits, generally because broadband providers don't want to think about running IP networks because they their skills lie more in the television part of RF networks. Content providers are offering to take out that middleman, bringing everybody's cost down. Some broadband providers think they deserve more of a free ride than others. It also happens that those broadband providers are generally already more expensive than their competitors. -- Niels. --
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net> wrote:
* jnanog@gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
Lower it?
Right now broadband providers pay a transit provider who then get paid by content providers to carry the bits, generally because broadband providers don't want to think about running IP networks because they their skills lie more in the television part of RF networks.
People are never gonna give this thread up, I see. Easily one of the longest threads in recent nanog history and I'm starting to see points rehashed and strawmen trotted out. Comcast sells wholesale transit - http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical. http://www.comcast.com/peering
Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus outbound traffic. The network cost burden for carrying traffic between networks shall be similar to justify SFI
Now, that big elephant in the room taken into account, where do the middlemen come in here? --srs
On 4/28/14, 9:23 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.
http://www.comcast.com/peering
Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus outbound traffic. The network cost burden for carrying traffic between networks shall be similar to justify SFI
Now, that big elephant in the room taken into account, where do the middlemen come in here?
People seem to forget what Comcast is doing is nothing new. People have been paying for unbalanced peering for as long as peering has been around. It's a little different because Netflix doesn't have an end network customer to bill to recoup those charges, they have customers on someone else's network. It's not like all broadband providers are anti-Netflix, some are even starting to include NF as an app on their STB. There are also many who do peer with Netflix settlement-free even with very unbalanced ratios. The key in the future is moving the bandwidth closer to the users, and we will see more edge caching exist either within the broadband provider facilities or at more localized 3rd party datacenters. Phil
On 4/28/2014 9:18 AM, Phil Bedard wrote:
People seem to forget what Comcast is doing is nothing new. People have been paying for unbalanced peering for as long as peering has been around. It's a little different because Netflix doesn't have an end network customer to bill to recoup those charges, they have customers on someone else's network. Yeah. It's a scam. Comcast can't do balanced peering. Their customers are not symmetrical.
It's not like all broadband providers are anti-Netflix, some are even starting to include NF as an app on their STB. There are also many who do peer with Netflix settlement-free even with very unbalanced ratios. The key in the future is moving the bandwidth closer to the users, and we will see more edge caching exist either within the broadband provider facilities or at more localized 3rd party datacenters.
Netflix is happy to assist with caching. The thing is, Comcast doesn't care about that. What they care about is that their last mile is getting saturated and they have to pay money to upgrade it. Costs are being shoved onto netflix and similar to justify that. This is compared to the small ISP who is just happy to get a peering or cache to save money only on their transit fees. Jack
If it was Netflix connected to say Cogent and Comcast connected to Level3 you would have the same unbalanced ratios between Cogent/Level3 for the same reasons. Level3 would likely be wanting compensation from Cogent for it... It is such a large amount of bandwidth these days it's not made up by other traffic. I am not saying any of it is right, but precedents in the past have led to this. Phil -----Original Message----- From: "Jack Bates" <jbates@paradoxnetworks.net> Sent: 4/28/2014 11:34 AM To: "Phil Bedard" <bedard.phil@gmail.com>; "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists@gmail.com>; "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they couldenshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post On 4/28/2014 9:18 AM, Phil Bedard wrote:
People seem to forget what Comcast is doing is nothing new. People have been paying for unbalanced peering for as long as peering has been around. It's a little different because Netflix doesn't have an end network customer to bill to recoup those charges, they have customers on someone else's network. Yeah. It's a scam. Comcast can't do balanced peering. Their customers are not symmetrical.
It's not like all broadband providers are anti-Netflix, some are even starting to include NF as an app on their STB. There are also many who do peer with Netflix settlement-free even with very unbalanced ratios. The key in the future is moving the bandwidth closer to the users, and we will see more edge caching exist either within the broadband provider facilities or at more localized 3rd party datacenters.
Netflix is happy to assist with caching. The thing is, Comcast doesn't care about that. What they care about is that their last mile is getting saturated and they have to pay money to upgrade it. Costs are being shoved onto netflix and similar to justify that. This is compared to the small ISP who is just happy to get a peering or cache to save money only on their transit fees. Jack
If it was Netflix connected to say Cogent and Comcast connected to Level3 you would have the same unbalanced ratios between Cogent/Level3 for the same reasons. Level3 would likely be wanting compensation from Cogent for it...
...and that would be fine as at that point we're talking about traffic exchanged between two transit providers, i.e. Level3 providing transit for Comcast and Cogent providing transit for Netflix. Settlement free peering and traffic ratios between transit AS's for these two respective parties is a different ball of wax from those some concepts in direct peering between the content provider and eyeball network. Comcast is the destination network for the traffic; they're not providing transit services to Netflix. Comcast needs to accept the Netflix traffic that Comcast's customers are requesting *somehow*; I don't see why they get to charge Netflix for a private peering relationship that's beneficial to both sides. -- Hugo On Mon 2014-Apr-28 08:56:55 -0700, bedard.phil@gmail.com <bedard.phil@gmail.com> wrote:
If it was Netflix connected to say Cogent and Comcast connected to Level3 you would have the same unbalanced ratios between Cogent/Level3 for the same reasons. Level3 would likely be wanting compensation from Cogent for it... It is such a large amount of bandwidth these days it's not made up by other traffic.
I am not saying any of it is right, but precedents in the past have led to this.
Phil
-----Original Message----- From: "Jack Bates" <jbates@paradoxnetworks.net> Sent: 4/28/2014 11:34 AM To: "Phil Bedard" <bedard.phil@gmail.com>; "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists@gmail.com>; "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they couldenshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
On 4/28/2014 9:18 AM, Phil Bedard wrote:
People seem to forget what Comcast is doing is nothing new. People have been paying for unbalanced peering for as long as peering has been around. It's a little different because Netflix doesn't have an end network customer to bill to recoup those charges, they have customers on someone else's network. Yeah. It's a scam. Comcast can't do balanced peering. Their customers are not symmetrical.
It's not like all broadband providers are anti-Netflix, some are even starting to include NF as an app on their STB. There are also many who do peer with Netflix settlement-free even with very unbalanced ratios. The key in the future is moving the bandwidth closer to the users, and we will see more edge caching exist either within the broadband provider facilities or at more localized 3rd party datacenters.
Netflix is happy to assist with caching. The thing is, Comcast doesn't care about that. What they care about is that their last mile is getting saturated and they have to pay money to upgrade it. Costs are being shoved onto netflix and similar to justify that.
This is compared to the small ISP who is just happy to get a peering or cache to save money only on their transit fees.
Jack
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
Comcast is the destination network for the traffic; they're not providing transit services to Netflix. Comcast needs to accept the Netflix traffic that Comcast's customers are requesting *somehow*; I don't see why they get to charge Netflix for a private peering relationship that's beneficial to both sides.
If done on a cost-recovery basis (alternating or otherwise), the net cost to both providers should be small, well within the of the boundaries of a standard cost of doing business. That argument also seems to be overlooked by people in the "Yes, $ISP should be able to charge both customers and content providers for the same traffic" camp. jms
* ops.lists@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 15:27 CEST]:
Comcast sells wholesale transit - http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true
And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.
How is that possibly realistic? They have 22 million customers (soon to become 29) with wildly asymmetrical connections and a very typical consumption pattern. Should Netflix change its apps that they upload an equal amount of bandwidth back to Netflix's servers to balance this out? That way lies madness. SBC had a much saner policy, from their 2006 SFI peering guidelines document: "No requirement for a balanced traffic exchange ratio due primarily to the asymmetric nature of current broadband metallic transmission systems such as ADSL and cable modems." (Then AT&T happened.)
Now, that big elephant in the room taken into account, where do the middlemen come in here?
Middlemen as in transit providers? The world is larger than Comcast's coverage area so there is a very good market for your middlemen. -- Niels. --
On 14-04-28 09:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Comcast sells wholesale transit - http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true
And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.
Analysing the effects of vertical integration is often best done by running structural separation scenarios. Netflix does not give content to Comcast-transit, it gives it to Comcast-ISP, this is especially true of cases where a network cache server is installed inside Comcast-ISP network. If Comcast-ISP told Netflix to install cache servers at one location, and then Comcast-ISP uses Comcast-transit to distribute content to all the cities it serves, it should be Comcast-ISP paying Comcast-transit for that service. It could just as well have installed the netflix appliance in every major city and not have to purchase transit from Comcast-transit.
MSOs run expansive IP networks today, including national dark fiber DWDM networks. They all have way more people with IP expertise than they do RF expertise. Even modern STBs use IP for many functions since they require 2-way communication, the last hold-out is your traditional TV delivery. Even then most of the MSOs have IPTV installations in at least some markets. That pendulum tipped a long long time ago now. Level3 actually had to pay Comcast the last time this all came around. They gained Netflix as a customer, the ratios of traffic a "transit" provider was sending to Comcast because way out of balance, and Level3 succumbed and paid. Mainly since most of the traffic wasn't "transit" traffic, it was Netflix traffic coming off Level3 CDNs. Transit providers have "double-dipped" forever when it comes to ingress/egress traffic to their own customers. -Phil On 4/28/14, 9:05 AM, "Niels Bakker" <niels=nanog@bakker.net> wrote:
Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue with their crappy last mile
* jnanog@gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free access to the Internet paid for by residential subscribers what do you think it would do to the price of broadband?
Lower it?
Right now broadband providers pay a transit provider who then get paid by content providers to carry the bits, generally because broadband providers don't want to think about running IP networks because they their skills lie more in the television part of RF networks.
Content providers are offering to take out that middleman, bringing everybody's cost down. Some broadband providers think they deserve more of a free ride than others. It also happens that those broadband providers are generally already more expensive than their competitors.
-- Niels.
--
On 14-04-27 02:23, Rick Astley wrote:
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.
Netflix has no business paying Comcast. It offers caching appliances, and CDN distribution which can be either inside Comcast's network, or close enough to peer with. So Netflix not only pays for its own connection to the internet, but also manages to pay for transit right up to major ISPs. Comcast has no business billing its suppliers. It is in business to bill its retail customers. Now, if Netflix were to charge more to Comcast customers and make a note of this before every program starts "you are paying more because you are on Comcast", you might see Comcast rethink its anti-competitive practice.
So L3 and earlier, cogent peer settlement free with Comcast and Netflix maxes out these peerings while they're there. What then? On 28-Apr-2014 3:02 pm, "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
On 14-04-27 02:23, Rick Astley wrote:
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.
Netflix has no business paying Comcast. It offers caching appliances, and CDN distribution which can be either inside Comcast's network, or close enough to peer with. So Netflix not only pays for its own connection to the internet, but also manages to pay for transit right up to major ISPs.
Comcast has no business billing its suppliers. It is in business to bill its retail customers.
Now, if Netflix were to charge more to Comcast customers and make a note of this before every program starts "you are paying more because you are on Comcast", you might see Comcast rethink its anti-competitive practice.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugo Slabbert" <hslabbert@stargate.ca>
But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really anything more nuanced here than:
1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life). 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market. 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on. 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customers' usage.
You may be new here, but I'm not, and I read it exactly the same way.
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something?
It is absolutely the problem of the eyeball carrier who gambled on a given oversubscription ratio and discovered that it's called gambling because sometimes, you lose. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
On 04/27/2014 03:15 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugo Slabbert" <hslabbert@stargate.ca>
But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really anything more nuanced here than:
1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life). 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market. 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on. 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customers' usage.
You may be new here, but I'm not, and I read it exactly the same way.
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something?
It is absolutely the problem of the eyeball carrier who gambled on a given oversubscription ratio and discovered that it's called gambling because sometimes, you lose.
+1 What I don't understand is why Netflix et al are not doing a PR campaign to explain this to the end users. Doug
On 4/26/14, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/
Why isn't it as simple as I'm paying my ISP to deliver the bits to me and Netflix is paying their [cdn?] provider to deliver the bits to me. Netflix is already paying their provider to deliver the bits to me, so why do they have to also pay my ISP to deliver the bits to me? It seems the FCC is on a roll - not only giving up on net neutrality but building up the local monopoly: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0423/DOC-3267... "The concept of targeting subsidies for broadband and voice service to pockets of rural America where they are needed most is central to the FCC's 2011 reforms. Later this year, "price cap" carriers will be given the opportunity to accept Connect America Fund support in high cost areas based on detailed local cost estimates, calculated by a cost model. Incumbent carriers must choose to accept or decline the offer of support for all entire high-cost locations they serve in a given state; if they decline, the subsidies will be made available to other providers, awarded through a Phase II competitive bidding process." Why do the incumbent carriers get the right of first refusal for subsidies? They're the ones that haven't served their local population so it seems like they should be the *last* to be offered subsidies. Lee
Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
The comments on the article are FAR more useful than the article itself. Owen On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> wrote:
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/
Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
participants (18)
-
bedard.phil＠gmail.com -
Doug Barton -
Hugo Slabbert -
Jack Bates -
Jay Ashworth -
Jean-Francois Mezei -
Justin M. Streiner -
Lamar Owen -
Larry Sheldon -
Lee -
Matthew Petach -
Michael Thomas -
Miles Fidelman -
Niels Bakker -
Owen DeLong -
Phil Bedard
-
Rick Astley -
Suresh Ramasubramanian