2 ms·

> but that should never normally happen unless the ISP is either incompetent or creating artificial scarcity for anticompetitive reasons. See Verizon and Comc

> but that should never normally happen unless the ISP is either incompetent or creating artificial scarcity for anticompetitive reasons. See Verizon and Comcast. Today. With Net Neutrality on the books. Want to bypass this congestion? Buy some PNIs. So what we have here is dilettantes talking about a how they think the world should be or is today rather than acknowledging that net neutrality stopped existing in 1995 when AS1239 started asking for $$ to get peering routes.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> See Verizon and Comcast. Today. With Net Neutrality on the books. Want to bypass this congestion? Buy some PNIs. That absolutely is a problem with the existing rules. Some people pointed that out when they were proposed. But the existing rules solve some problems, just not all of them. And you don't go forward by going backward.
- notyourday 9y ago
  Since Sprint in 1995 got away with asking others who peered with it over public exchanges for money in order not to turn down their existing peering, NN was dead. NN does not live in reality. In reality there are so many line cards that one can put into a router/switch/linux box, there's so much space in a cabinet and there are only so many people who know how to operate in a physical world. Everyone with a little money and clue can generate a hundred gigabit per second traffic towards eyeballs behind Comcast but only those with serious money and serious clue would be able to do it with reasonable performance - Comcast/Verizon/ATT/NewFiberToEveryoneOnTheEastCoast ISP will need to prioritize physical world deployment and it would go to the one with serious money and serious clue. And since NN cannot address this, it is toast and it has always been toast. The solution is regional ISPs and regional networks - breaking up franchise agreements with Comcast and Verizon that your little town has, getting ROW via cities/towns, leveraging small electric companies ROWS, etc.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > Since Sprint in 1995 got away with asking others who peered with it over public exchanges for money in order not to turn down their existing peering, NN was dead. Which is why we still need a rule prohibiting that. But the existing rules are still helpful. They address the consumer side of things. At least you don't have Comcast charging its customers money for a Netflix package and charging Netflix for peering. > The solution is regional ISPs and regional networks - breaking up franchise agreements with Comcast and Verizon that your little town has, getting ROW via cities/towns, leveraging small electric companies ROWS, etc. That could be a solution, but it would certainly take at least a decade if not more, and until that has actually happened we need something else.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      > Which is why we still need a rule prohibiting that. But the existing rules are still helpful. They address the consumer side of things. At least you don't have Comcast charging its customers money for a Netflix package and charging Netflix for peering. ISPs do not care about charging customers for tiered packages - policies are too difficult to implement. It is much easier to charge Google, Netflix and Facebook. Single point of contact, single large payment and if Google/Fb/Netflix don't pay ability to deliver real pain. > That could be a solution, but it would certainly take at least a decade if not more, and until that has actually happened we need something else. That is the solution and it is something that needed to be started twenty years ago. If we started it at that time, we would not even be having this conversation because ISPs would be highly competitive utilities. The problem is that building networks, digging ditches, mounting routers and dealing with customers is not as sexy as launching HotOrNot or SnapChat.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> See Verizon and Comcast. Today. With Net Neutrality on the books. Want to bypass this congestion? Buy some PNIs. That absolutely is a problem with the existing rules. Some people pointed that out when they were proposed. But the existing rules solve some problems, just not all of them. And you don't go forward by going backward.

notyourday 9y ago
Since Sprint in 1995 got away with asking others who peered with it over public exchanges for money in order not to turn down their existing peering, NN was dead. NN does not live in reality. In reality there are so many line cards that one can put into a router/switch/linux box, there's so much space in a cabinet and there are only so many people who know how to operate in a physical world. Everyone with a little money and clue can generate a hundred gigabit per second traffic towards eyeballs behind Comcast but only those with serious money and serious clue would be able to do it with reasonable performance - Comcast/Verizon/ATT/NewFiberToEveryoneOnTheEastCoast ISP will need to prioritize physical world deployment and it would go to the one with serious money and serious clue. And since NN cannot address this, it is toast and it has always been toast. The solution is regional ISPs and regional networks - breaking up franchise agreements with Comcast and Verizon that your little town has, getting ROW via cities/towns, leveraging small electric companies ROWS, etc.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > Since Sprint in 1995 got away with asking others who peered with it over public exchanges for money in order not to turn down their existing peering, NN was dead. Which is why we still need a rule prohibiting that. But the existing rules are still helpful. They address the consumer side of things. At least you don't have Comcast charging its customers money for a Netflix package and charging Netflix for peering. > The solution is regional ISPs and regional networks - breaking up franchise agreements with Comcast and Verizon that your little town has, getting ROW via cities/towns, leveraging small electric companies ROWS, etc. That could be a solution, but it would certainly take at least a decade if not more, and until that has actually happened we need something else.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    > Which is why we still need a rule prohibiting that. But the existing rules are still helpful. They address the consumer side of things. At least you don't have Comcast charging its customers money for a Netflix package and charging Netflix for peering. ISPs do not care about charging customers for tiered packages - policies are too difficult to implement. It is much easier to charge Google, Netflix and Facebook. Single point of contact, single large payment and if Google/Fb/Netflix don't pay ability to deliver real pain. > That could be a solution, but it would certainly take at least a decade if not more, and until that has actually happened we need something else. That is the solution and it is something that needed to be started twenty years ago. If we started it at that time, we would not even be having this conversation because ISPs would be highly competitive utilities. The problem is that building networks, digging ditches, mounting routers and dealing with customers is not as sexy as launching HotOrNot or SnapChat.