6 ms·

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

by 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.
    - dimino 10y ago
      That's what throttling is, yes, but that's not what Comcast did, so it's not really relevant to this conversation. That's also not at all what peering agreements are.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        > that's not what Comcast did Which part of it did they not do? > That's also not at all what peering agreements are. Peering agreements mean plugging the pipes into the device. Not having peering agreements means unplugging some of the capacity, which has the effect of throttling. I'm not really sure why you're so insistent on this sophistry. There are pipes with enough capacity from Netflix to Comcast. There are pipes with enough capacity from Comcast to its customers. Anything they do in that Comcast building which prevents the traffic from flowing at full speed is going to be equivalent to throttling.
        dimino 10y ago
        This has all been in an effort to answer the question, "Will Comcast be forced to peer with Netflix without having Netflix pay as a result of this ruling?" and the answer is no. Comcast will continue to be able to charge Netflix for their peering agreement. You claimed this wasn't true, and you are wrong. I don't want anyone to get the incorrect idea that what you're saying is correct, because it is in no way true. No one (not Netflix, Comcast, the US government, or Wikipedia) but you considers peering agreements (or not having them) to be "literally the same" as throttling.
        AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        So now you seem to have given up on the idea that having a NOC where two fast pipes come in and you arrange to prevent them from passing traffic at high speed is not throttling, and are now making some different (and also wrong) claim. This ruling was about whether the FCC has the authority to regulate ISPs as telecommunications carriers. It seems that they do. Which presumably means that the FCC could require last mile providers to do free peering. And they should, even though they haven't yet.

by dimino 10y ago

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.
  - dimino 10y ago
    That's what throttling is, yes, but that's not what Comcast did, so it's not really relevant to this conversation. That's also not at all what peering agreements are.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > that's not what Comcast did Which part of it did they not do? > That's also not at all what peering agreements are. Peering agreements mean plugging the pipes into the device. Not having peering agreements means unplugging some of the capacity, which has the effect of throttling. I'm not really sure why you're so insistent on this sophistry. There are pipes with enough capacity from Netflix to Comcast. There are pipes with enough capacity from Comcast to its customers. Anything they do in that Comcast building which prevents the traffic from flowing at full speed is going to be equivalent to throttling.
      - dimino 10y ago
        This has all been in an effort to answer the question, "Will Comcast be forced to peer with Netflix without having Netflix pay as a result of this ruling?" and the answer is no. Comcast will continue to be able to charge Netflix for their peering agreement. You claimed this wasn't true, and you are wrong. I don't want anyone to get the incorrect idea that what you're saying is correct, because it is in no way true. No one (not Netflix, Comcast, the US government, or Wikipedia) but you considers peering agreements (or not having them) to be "literally the same" as throttling.
        AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        So now you seem to have given up on the idea that having a NOC where two fast pipes come in and you arrange to prevent them from passing traffic at high speed is not throttling, and are now making some different (and also wrong) claim. This ruling was about whether the FCC has the authority to regulate ISPs as telecommunications carriers. It seems that they do. Which presumably means that the FCC could require last mile providers to do free peering. And they should, even though they haven't yet.