5 ms·

There's a difference between "not throttling" and "allowing a peering agreement". This ruling doesn't mean Comcast must allow Netflix to put servers in Comcast

by dimino 10y ago

There's a difference between "not throttling" and "allowing a peering agreement". This ruling doesn't mean Comcast must allow Netflix to put servers in Comcast's datacenters. Peering agreements have never really been part of a truly "neutral" Internet.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> There's a difference between "not throttling" and "allowing a peering agreement". There basically isn't. Otherwise they just underprovision the default link so that anything using it is de facto throttled and the only alternative is peering. > This ruling doesn't mean Comcast must allow Netflix to put servers in Comcast's datacenters. Peering doesn't require putting servers in your datacenter. Peering means Netflix brings fiber to Comcast's datacenter and Comcast plugs it into one of their network ports.
- rhino369 10y ago
  There is a big difference. Peering isn't the only way to deliver packets. There probably should be some regulation of ISP peering but it just doesn't fall under net neutrality. If anything it's sort of against net neutrality. A small startup would have pay for a CDN or a transit and netflix gets it for free? Just because they are big.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > If anything it's sort of against net neutrality. A small startup would have pay for a CDN or a transit and netflix gets it for free? Just because they are big. They don't get anything for free that the little guy doesn't. They're just doing their own transit instead of paying somebody else to do it. Nobody is saying Netflix can peer with Comcast in California for Comcast customers in New England. They have to bring the traffic into the region, whether by paying someone for transit or by building their own transit network. Comcast just can't charge them for access to the last mile, and neither can it charge anybody else (like the transit providers who provide service to the little guy).
- dimino 10y ago
  You're speaking in general, I'm being specific. The way Netflix has implemented peering is by literally building servers containing their content library, and racking them in ISP datacenters. And there is a very real difference between peering agreements and throttling. The effect in both cases is slower Netflix, but they are completely different, from a technology and practical standpoint. "Basically the same" doesn't pass muster when it comes to something like this, which is ruled entirely by subtlety and nuance.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > You're speaking in general, I'm being specific. No, I'm being specific about what Comcast should be obliged to do. If you bring fiber to their regional NOC they should have to deliver the traffic to their regional customers. It doesn't matter what Netflix is actually doing right now -- they probably wouldn't be doing it if Comcast hadn't made it a requirement for high bandwidth access to their customers. > And there is a very real difference between peering agreements and throttling. The effect in both cases is slower Netflix, but they are completely different, from a technology and practical standpoint. No they aren't, they're completely identical. There is utterly no difference between throttling a port down to 100Mbps and intentionally using a 100Mbps port. The only thing you can even argue is that in theory a 10Gbps port would be more expensive, but it's more expensive by an amortized annual cost of something like $50. It's a negligible amount of money which is several orders of magnitude off from what Comcast wants to charge for peering.
    - dimino 10y ago
      I'm honestly having a hard time understanding what you're talking about because Netflix is not bringing fiber to Comcast's regional NOC, nor is Comcast performing any traffic shaping whatsoever on Netflix traffic when they're not honoring their peering agreement. Literally neither of the things you said should be forced to happen have been requested by Netflix or Comcast. Netflix didn't want to pay anything for housing Netflix's server in Comcast's datacenter, rather than continue to pay Comcast for their peering agreement and network upgrades required to honor their peering agreement. Comcast said "no", and stopped peering with Netflix (very briefly was this actually happening, Netflix quickly acquiesced). This sent Netflix's traffic to Comcast users over the greater Internet, which is slower. THIS rerouting is what caused the slowdown, not any slowing via network devices. The Internet, as a whole, is slower than a direct connection between Comcast and Netflix. That's the whole reason for peering agreements, after all. Comcast never targeted Netflix with any kind of slowness, with hardware or software. So again, I'm confused why you think this has anything to do with "running fiber" or "intentionally using a 100Mbps port". Neither of those things have happened.
revelation 10y ago
In a sane world, there would already be a very clear legal lever for forcing ISPs into peering agreements. You can't sell 50Mbit to a thousand people and then only provide a 100Mbit backbone, just as an electrical utility can't sell you a 300A hookup and only wire up 30AWG, or have voltage drop to half when people in your neighborhood happen to turn on their dryer. The ISP world right now is the fucking wild west, selling "up to 50Mbits" only to have 10 arrive (just based on line attenuation!), overselling capacity of shared networks like cable 100 times over causing consistent, measurable and repeatable drop at peak times, modifying network traffic to insert "supercookies" (can you imagine USPS opening all mail) and configuring default DNS servers that hijack NXDOMAIN for malware infected websites to make a quick buck.
- mjevans 10y ago
  Yes, I agree with this. A major portion of this problem is that /minimum service/ is not specked. Up to is fine; but how much will I get when everyone wants to use it at once? Be honest, tell me a 'safe' number (this means pad it just a little, at least). Violating this number on a repeating, particularly repeatable basis, means that the portion of the bill which is going to pay for infrastructure upkeep (including expansion) needs to go to fixing this problem. Failure to have an expedient plan (parts on order by the end of the next business week, maintenance scheduled 'soon') for resolving this should lead to daily fines.
- Kadin 10y ago
  I suspect that the electric infrastructure probably is oversubscribed, in the sense that I doubt that everyone on my street could draw 200A each all at the same time and not trip a breaker somewhere upstream. But it's a testament to the way electric utilities are run that we don't notice the oversubscription. If ISPs were run the same way, probably nobody would care, either. It's just that they like to press right up against what customers will bear.

by dimino 10y ago

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> There's a difference between "not throttling" and "allowing a peering agreement". There basically isn't. Otherwise they just underprovision the default link so that anything using it is de facto throttled and the only alternative is peering. > This ruling doesn't mean Comcast must allow Netflix to put servers in Comcast's datacenters. Peering doesn't require putting servers in your datacenter. Peering means Netflix brings fiber to Comcast's datacenter and Comcast plugs it into one of their network ports.

rhino369 10y ago
There is a big difference. Peering isn't the only way to deliver packets. There probably should be some regulation of ISP peering but it just doesn't fall under net neutrality. If anything it's sort of against net neutrality. A small startup would have pay for a CDN or a transit and netflix gets it for free? Just because they are big.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > If anything it's sort of against net neutrality. A small startup would have pay for a CDN or a transit and netflix gets it for free? Just because they are big. They don't get anything for free that the little guy doesn't. They're just doing their own transit instead of paying somebody else to do it. Nobody is saying Netflix can peer with Comcast in California for Comcast customers in New England. They have to bring the traffic into the region, whether by paying someone for transit or by building their own transit network. Comcast just can't charge them for access to the last mile, and neither can it charge anybody else (like the transit providers who provide service to the little guy).
dimino 10y ago
You're speaking in general, I'm being specific. The way Netflix has implemented peering is by literally building servers containing their content library, and racking them in ISP datacenters. And there is a very real difference between peering agreements and throttling. The effect in both cases is slower Netflix, but they are completely different, from a technology and practical standpoint. "Basically the same" doesn't pass muster when it comes to something like this, which is ruled entirely by subtlety and nuance.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > You're speaking in general, I'm being specific. No, I'm being specific about what Comcast should be obliged to do. If you bring fiber to their regional NOC they should have to deliver the traffic to their regional customers. It doesn't matter what Netflix is actually doing right now -- they probably wouldn't be doing it if Comcast hadn't made it a requirement for high bandwidth access to their customers. > And there is a very real difference between peering agreements and throttling. The effect in both cases is slower Netflix, but they are completely different, from a technology and practical standpoint. No they aren't, they're completely identical. There is utterly no difference between throttling a port down to 100Mbps and intentionally using a 100Mbps port. The only thing you can even argue is that in theory a 10Gbps port would be more expensive, but it's more expensive by an amortized annual cost of something like $50. It's a negligible amount of money which is several orders of magnitude off from what Comcast wants to charge for peering.
  - dimino 10y ago
    I'm honestly having a hard time understanding what you're talking about because Netflix is not bringing fiber to Comcast's regional NOC, nor is Comcast performing any traffic shaping whatsoever on Netflix traffic when they're not honoring their peering agreement. Literally neither of the things you said should be forced to happen have been requested by Netflix or Comcast. Netflix didn't want to pay anything for housing Netflix's server in Comcast's datacenter, rather than continue to pay Comcast for their peering agreement and network upgrades required to honor their peering agreement. Comcast said "no", and stopped peering with Netflix (very briefly was this actually happening, Netflix quickly acquiesced). This sent Netflix's traffic to Comcast users over the greater Internet, which is slower. THIS rerouting is what caused the slowdown, not any slowing via network devices. The Internet, as a whole, is slower than a direct connection between Comcast and Netflix. That's the whole reason for peering agreements, after all. Comcast never targeted Netflix with any kind of slowness, with hardware or software. So again, I'm confused why you think this has anything to do with "running fiber" or "intentionally using a 100Mbps port". Neither of those things have happened.

revelation 10y ago

In a sane world, there would already be a very clear legal lever for forcing ISPs into peering agreements. You can't sell 50Mbit to a thousand people and then only provide a 100Mbit backbone, just as an electrical utility can't sell you a 300A hookup and only wire up 30AWG, or have voltage drop to half when people in your neighborhood happen to turn on their dryer. The ISP world right now is the fucking wild west, selling "up to 50Mbits" only to have 10 arrive (just based on line attenuation!), overselling capacity of shared networks like cable 100 times over causing consistent, measurable and repeatable drop at peak times, modifying network traffic to insert "supercookies" (can you imagine USPS opening all mail) and configuring default DNS servers that hijack NXDOMAIN for malware infected websites to make a quick buck.

mjevans 10y ago
Yes, I agree with this. A major portion of this problem is that /minimum service/ is not specked. Up to is fine; but how much will I get when everyone wants to use it at once? Be honest, tell me a 'safe' number (this means pad it just a little, at least). Violating this number on a repeating, particularly repeatable basis, means that the portion of the bill which is going to pay for infrastructure upkeep (including expansion) needs to go to fixing this problem. Failure to have an expedient plan (parts on order by the end of the next business week, maintenance scheduled 'soon') for resolving this should lead to daily fines.
Kadin 10y ago
I suspect that the electric infrastructure probably is oversubscribed, in the sense that I doubt that everyone on my street could draw 200A each all at the same time and not trip a breaker somewhere upstream. But it's a testament to the way electric utilities are run that we don't notice the oversubscription. If ISPs were run the same way, probably nobody would care, either. It's just that they like to press right up against what customers will bear.