4 ms·

This is not scalable.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Is it not a bit premature to argue this considering BingeOn has only been recently released? ISPs have been performing traffic management since their inception two decades ago. I've done network engineering for about 1/3 of my 15 year career. To be blunt with you, its definitely scalable. Could you explain to me why it isn't?
- dsp1234 11y ago
  its definitely scalable. Could you explain to me why it isn't? Imagine a world in which every ISP in the country had this system. Let's say that number is 1000 ISPs (with a typical 80/20 distribution). As a video streaming start up, that's 200 ISPs that would need to be contacted and technical measures put in to place. It's likely that at least some of them are going to have incompatible requirements. So now the bar for a new (possibly better) video service is not just maintaining browser compatibility, but also signing contracts and meeting technical limitations for 10-200 ISPs. Sure it works for exactly one company, but it doesn't work if the system is expanded to everyone. In other words, it's not scalable.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    This is exactly how peering and transit setups work across ISPs. The burden is far lower than you describe. If you can't meet the technical requirements that provide T-Mobile the network benefit to support BingeOn, you don't get included in the program. Its pretty simple. If you're a video streaming startup, you're not going to be serving content to ISPs. Your CDN is. Your CDN would have a process in place to integrate with whatever ISPs wanted to support this. If you're attempting to service content directly from your own servers, you're either enormous, or stupid.
    - amazon_not 11y ago
      > This is exactly how peering and transit setups work across ISPs. The burden is far lower than you describe. Only it's not. If you need Internet transit, all you have to do is buy transit from two to three transit providers and you are all set. You'll get as big and as fast pipes as you like and at a price cheaper than doing it yourself. There is no need to make bespoke deals with 200 ISPs are there would be if everybody started with this BingeOn crap. > If you're a video streaming startup, you're not going to be serving content to ISPs. Your CDN is. Only if you are made out of money and/or don't know what you are doing. > If you're attempting to service content directly from your own servers, you're either enormous, or stupid. Neither enormous not stupid, just competent. You on the other hand have obviously never done video streaming and don't know what you are talking about.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > Neither enormous not stupid, just competent. You on the other hand have obviously never done video streaming and don't know what you are talking about. My last gig was managing the video streaming infrastructure for a major US broadcaster. I think I've got a grasp on how its done.
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      Imagine that you didn't have to peer to level 3 and be done, but instead had to have peering contracts with every single network that your packets passed through. Your CDN would have a process in place to integrate So rates through CDNs go through the roof (even more than they are for streamed video content already) because now they have to peer every end user ISP, and as a video streaming service, those costs are passed on to you. So something that was previously "free" (so as not to be a net neutrality violation) has the same effect of increasing costs and reducing competition. And then on the flip side, if a startup is trying to build a new (possibly better) CDN company, itstill has the same problem. You didn't remove the problem, you just moved it, and it's still just as unscalable.

Is it not a bit premature to argue this considering BingeOn has only been recently released? ISPs have been performing traffic management since their inception two decades ago. I've done network engineering for about 1/3 of my 15 year career. To be blunt with you, its definitely scalable. Could you explain to me why it isn't?

dsp1234 11y ago
its definitely scalable. Could you explain to me why it isn't? Imagine a world in which every ISP in the country had this system. Let's say that number is 1000 ISPs (with a typical 80/20 distribution). As a video streaming start up, that's 200 ISPs that would need to be contacted and technical measures put in to place. It's likely that at least some of them are going to have incompatible requirements. So now the bar for a new (possibly better) video service is not just maintaining browser compatibility, but also signing contracts and meeting technical limitations for 10-200 ISPs. Sure it works for exactly one company, but it doesn't work if the system is expanded to everyone. In other words, it's not scalable.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  This is exactly how peering and transit setups work across ISPs. The burden is far lower than you describe. If you can't meet the technical requirements that provide T-Mobile the network benefit to support BingeOn, you don't get included in the program. Its pretty simple. If you're a video streaming startup, you're not going to be serving content to ISPs. Your CDN is. Your CDN would have a process in place to integrate with whatever ISPs wanted to support this. If you're attempting to service content directly from your own servers, you're either enormous, or stupid.
  - amazon_not 11y ago
    > This is exactly how peering and transit setups work across ISPs. The burden is far lower than you describe. Only it's not. If you need Internet transit, all you have to do is buy transit from two to three transit providers and you are all set. You'll get as big and as fast pipes as you like and at a price cheaper than doing it yourself. There is no need to make bespoke deals with 200 ISPs are there would be if everybody started with this BingeOn crap. > If you're a video streaming startup, you're not going to be serving content to ISPs. Your CDN is. Only if you are made out of money and/or don't know what you are doing. > If you're attempting to service content directly from your own servers, you're either enormous, or stupid. Neither enormous not stupid, just competent. You on the other hand have obviously never done video streaming and don't know what you are talking about.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > Neither enormous not stupid, just competent. You on the other hand have obviously never done video streaming and don't know what you are talking about. My last gig was managing the video streaming infrastructure for a major US broadcaster. I think I've got a grasp on how its done.
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    Imagine that you didn't have to peer to level 3 and be done, but instead had to have peering contracts with every single network that your packets passed through. Your CDN would have a process in place to integrate So rates through CDNs go through the roof (even more than they are for streamed video content already) because now they have to peer every end user ISP, and as a video streaming service, those costs are passed on to you. So something that was previously "free" (so as not to be a net neutrality violation) has the same effect of increasing costs and reducing competition. And then on the flip side, if a startup is trying to build a new (possibly better) CDN company, itstill has the same problem. You didn't remove the problem, you just moved it, and it's still just as unscalable.