5 ms·

I was right with you until you brought up Netflix. I'm unclear on why Netflix being a big source of traffic is a problem. It's not like people are having troubl

I was right with you until you brought up Netflix. I'm unclear on why Netflix being a big source of traffic is a problem. It's not like people are having trouble accessing Netflix now. And Netflix makes extensive use of CDNs and co-locates caching servers in the ISPs' own data centers, so it's not like the fact that everyone's using Netflix is really burdening the ISP.

gknoy 9y ago
Do you want your ISP to charge you extra for the "privilege" of being able to get access to Netflix ("Streaming media package!"), or Twitch ("Esports!"), __in addition__ to any subscriptions you would already pay to Netflix?
- openasocket 9y ago
  You're misunderstanding me. My point is that a common anti-NN argument is "but Netflix generates so much traffic..." and I'm saying that argument is without merit.
  - lurr 9y ago
    The argument that video streaming results in tremendously one way traffic, making peering agreements unfair, seems worth considering.
    - openasocket 9y ago
      I don't understand how traffic directionality affects peering. The path of routers between the client and the server handle all packets. The fact that the source is mostly from one size doesn't affect the load on the routers, they're still handling the same number of packets whether the traffic is symmetric or not.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      Unfair to Netflix. They could send back a whole bunch of zero bytes to make the traffic symmetrical. They save everyone's resources by not doing that, yet somehow that means they should be charged... The direction of the traffic is meaningless. What matters is the endpoint of the connection. ISPs should be happy to peer with anyone for traffic that has their users as an endpoint.
sliverstorm 9y ago
The ISP's feel like, burden or not, since Netflix represents more of the traffic they should pay more of the infrastructure cost. Many people fear that if Net Neutrality is repealed, the ISP's will have a giant lever (in the form of levying fees on customers for accessing Netflix) to squeeze Netflix to get them to cough up more cash. It's an old & interesting debate about how data service ought to be billed. If 26 customers pay for 50MB/s service, most use 2MB/s, one uses 50MB/s, and the uplink is sparsely provisioned at 100MB/s, what is fair? One customer is using half the capacity of the link but only paying 1/26th of the costs, while the others are using 1/50th of the capacity and paying 1/26th the cost. Many might argue the one customer should be paying more.
- openasocket 9y ago
  That's an argument for billing customers based on bytes of traffic (as opposed to a flat monthly rate) which does not violate Net Neutrality.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    Yes, although bytes-based billing runs counter to the provider-side convention of peering.

gknoy 9y ago

Do you want your ISP to charge you extra for the "privilege" of being able to get access to Netflix ("Streaming media package!"), or Twitch ("Esports!"), __in addition__ to any subscriptions you would already pay to Netflix?

openasocket 9y ago
You're misunderstanding me. My point is that a common anti-NN argument is "but Netflix generates so much traffic..." and I'm saying that argument is without merit.
- lurr 9y ago
  The argument that video streaming results in tremendously one way traffic, making peering agreements unfair, seems worth considering.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    I don't understand how traffic directionality affects peering. The path of routers between the client and the server handle all packets. The fact that the source is mostly from one size doesn't affect the load on the routers, they're still handling the same number of packets whether the traffic is symmetric or not.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    Unfair to Netflix. They could send back a whole bunch of zero bytes to make the traffic symmetrical. They save everyone's resources by not doing that, yet somehow that means they should be charged... The direction of the traffic is meaningless. What matters is the endpoint of the connection. ISPs should be happy to peer with anyone for traffic that has their users as an endpoint.

sliverstorm 9y ago

The ISP's feel like, burden or not, since Netflix represents more of the traffic they should pay more of the infrastructure cost. Many people fear that if Net Neutrality is repealed, the ISP's will have a giant lever (in the form of levying fees on customers for accessing Netflix) to squeeze Netflix to get them to cough up more cash. It's an old & interesting debate about how data service ought to be billed. If 26 customers pay for 50MB/s service, most use 2MB/s, one uses 50MB/s, and the uplink is sparsely provisioned at 100MB/s, what is fair? One customer is using half the capacity of the link but only paying 1/26th of the costs, while the others are using 1/50th of the capacity and paying 1/26th the cost. Many might argue the one customer should be paying more.

openasocket 9y ago
That's an argument for billing customers based on bytes of traffic (as opposed to a flat monthly rate) which does not violate Net Neutrality.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Yes, although bytes-based billing runs counter to the provider-side convention of peering.