5 ms·

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 performi

by 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.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
Maybe the reason you're confused is that at this level, peering is the internet. Comcast has a NOC that terminates connections going to its last mile customers and then peers with other networks. There is no separate "the internet" here, there are only peering connections to Netflix, Level 3, Google, etc. So if Comcast doesn't peer with Netflix then the only way for Netflix traffic to get to Comcast customers is to travel via some network Comcast does peer with, like Level 3. The problem is, this gives Comcast monopoly power. However much Netflix traffic has to get from Netflix to Comcast customers, so regardless of which peer that traffic comes through, Comcast absent regulation can charge them monopoly rents in exchange for not having a link which is too slow to carry the traffic. There is no inherent need for Netflix servers to be anywhere near Comcast. Netflix could put their servers in Amazon and pay Level 3 to deliver the traffic to Comcast, which is what they used to do. The problem is then Comcast can charge Level 3 the monopoly rents which Level 3 would then have to pass on and make the arrangement unprofitable, which is what Comcast wants because then Netflix is forced to buy those services from Comcast at higher prices. Now suppose Comcast has to do free peering with anybody. Then Level 3 can get free peering (i.e. bring fiber to Comcast) and Netflix can pay Amazon and Level 3 (or Microsoft and Cogent or anybody else). They can even continue buying from Comcast, but would only do that if Comcast charges competitive rates instead of monopoly rents -- which is the whole point.
- dimino 10y ago
  Yes, that's true, but again, this is all very different from throttling. The person I replied to asked if Netflix is able to stop paying Comcast. I responded that, since refusing a peering agreement is not the same as throttling, the implication is Netflix will likely continue to have to pay Comcast. I fail to see how any of what you've written here has much to do with your claim that peering agreements and throttling are the same thing. To be clear to anyone else reading this, they absolutely are not. They're just literally different terms for different things. From Wikipedia: > Bandwidth throttling is the intentional slowing of Internet service by an Internet service provider. [0] > In computer networking, peering is a voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the users of each network. [1] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering You said that peering agreements and throttling are "completely identical". I guess you should start making the argument to Wikipedia to merge the two pages, then?
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > You said that peering agreements and throttling are "completely identical". Not throttling and peering arrangements (with unrestricted bandwidth) are completely identical. Or if you want to be pedantic, not peering (or peering at limited bandwidth) is a type of throttling.
    - dimino 10y ago
      No, because putting someone on a 100mbps pipe is not throttling them. Limiting that pipe to 50mbps is, however, throttling, according to the definition given by Wikipedia, and the definitions given by the FCC and upheld in court today.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        Comcast has a pipe that goes to the last mile which is capable of 10Gbps+. Netflix or Level 3 have a pipe coming into Comcast which is capable of 10Gbps+. Comcast puts a thing in in between which is not a pipe, it's a device, and it transfers data at some lower speed. Or zero. That's what throttling is. A device between two fast pipes that lowers the speed they can exchange data.

by dimino 10y ago

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

Maybe the reason you're confused is that at this level, peering is the internet. Comcast has a NOC that terminates connections going to its last mile customers and then peers with other networks. There is no separate "the internet" here, there are only peering connections to Netflix, Level 3, Google, etc. So if Comcast doesn't peer with Netflix then the only way for Netflix traffic to get to Comcast customers is to travel via some network Comcast does peer with, like Level 3. The problem is, this gives Comcast monopoly power. However much Netflix traffic has to get from Netflix to Comcast customers, so regardless of which peer that traffic comes through, Comcast absent regulation can charge them monopoly rents in exchange for not having a link which is too slow to carry the traffic. There is no inherent need for Netflix servers to be anywhere near Comcast. Netflix could put their servers in Amazon and pay Level 3 to deliver the traffic to Comcast, which is what they used to do. The problem is then Comcast can charge Level 3 the monopoly rents which Level 3 would then have to pass on and make the arrangement unprofitable, which is what Comcast wants because then Netflix is forced to buy those services from Comcast at higher prices. Now suppose Comcast has to do free peering with anybody. Then Level 3 can get free peering (i.e. bring fiber to Comcast) and Netflix can pay Amazon and Level 3 (or Microsoft and Cogent or anybody else). They can even continue buying from Comcast, but would only do that if Comcast charges competitive rates instead of monopoly rents -- which is the whole point.

dimino 10y ago
Yes, that's true, but again, this is all very different from throttling. The person I replied to asked if Netflix is able to stop paying Comcast. I responded that, since refusing a peering agreement is not the same as throttling, the implication is Netflix will likely continue to have to pay Comcast. I fail to see how any of what you've written here has much to do with your claim that peering agreements and throttling are the same thing. To be clear to anyone else reading this, they absolutely are not. They're just literally different terms for different things. From Wikipedia: > Bandwidth throttling is the intentional slowing of Internet service by an Internet service provider. [0] > In computer networking, peering is a voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the users of each network. [1] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering You said that peering agreements and throttling are "completely identical". I guess you should start making the argument to Wikipedia to merge the two pages, then?
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > You said that peering agreements and throttling are "completely identical". Not throttling and peering arrangements (with unrestricted bandwidth) are completely identical. Or if you want to be pedantic, not peering (or peering at limited bandwidth) is a type of throttling.
  - dimino 10y ago
    No, because putting someone on a 100mbps pipe is not throttling them. Limiting that pipe to 50mbps is, however, throttling, according to the definition given by Wikipedia, and the definitions given by the FCC and upheld in court today.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      Comcast has a pipe that goes to the last mile which is capable of 10Gbps+. Netflix or Level 3 have a pipe coming into Comcast which is capable of 10Gbps+. Comcast puts a thing in in between which is not a pipe, it's a device, and it transfers data at some lower speed. Or zero. That's what throttling is. A device between two fast pipes that lowers the speed they can exchange data.