4 ms·

There is misunderstanding of th "Netflix and Google, which already pay for direct connections to ISP networks." Paying interconnection fee in major metro for pr

by betaby 8y ago

There is misunderstanding of th "Netflix and Google, which already pay for direct connections to ISP networks." Paying interconnection fee in major metro for private peering is peanuts. On other side delivering that traffic to the end customer is expensive. So if everyone OK that payment should be only on one side, i.e. consumer of the traffic, that means that every data center should be getting free bandwidth from ISPs, since that traffic is requested by the customer. By that logic cloud provider bandwidth expenses should be zero, so video streaming services and so on. Basically you create 8K streaming service and DEMAND ISP to give you interconnect and they MUST deliver that content to the end users and recover cost on the end customer side.

ryanobjc 8y ago
I literally don't know what to make of this disingenuous argument. Of course delivering traffic to the end customer is expensive. That's why customers are paying for that. ISPs just want to get paid on both sides, and extract a new rent out of their (government created and paid for) monopolies.
- betaby 8y ago
  Not really both sides, it's balance, I would say ISP recover about 80% from the end customers (eyeballs) and 20% from the data centres, CDNs, Cloud providers. Big and popular guys like Google pretty often get settlement free peering in major metros.
  - iforgotpassword 8y ago
    Why that nonsense? The ISP has to create a sustainable business model by setting the pricing for the customer properly. If the market changes, eg streaming becomes a thing, they have to adjust prices accordingly, not try to charge other parties. The net has always been unfair in that not everyone was charged exactly according to what cost they generated. We couldn't have flat rates if it weren't for that. Even before that we mostly charged people by time spent online instead of traffic generated, which doesn't make too much sense either and mostly was just carried over from the analogue modem days.
    - betaby 8y ago
      Because it's not really a nonsense. It's an asymmetry in the multiple places. We can turn it around and say, let's customers (eyeballs) pay zero and content generators pay all the expenses. By asymmetry I mean that -who's calling who? With telephone it's established practice that one who calls pay, and what works. With traffic we may pretend the same thing, one who sends let say GET - pays, but that super complex technically. Another option is to pay only by outgoing traffic, that eliminates doble dipping. So in this case, because of asymmetry most of traffic should be paid by Google. Alternatively, let's pay by incoming - in this case customer pays a lot and Google nothing. Tables turned in case on Backblaze - customers should pay zero. I love bashing ISP like other guy, yet situation is much complex then we a tryong to pretend it is.
woah 8y ago
This is a terrible argument. The customer is already paying for the connection to their house. The issues that ISPs are having is that they advertised an unlimited data cap at a certain speed, and with video services, customers are making use of it. The ISPs would now like to blame the services that the customers are using on their unlimited connection. The honest thing for the ISPs to do is either: 1. Build out the capacity to service the unlimited connections they advertise. Or 2. Stop advertising unlimited connections.
extrapickles 8y ago
If it truely was a problem, the peering agreements would not be for peanuts. I paying my ISP for a connection to a peering point, why should they be able to charge Amazon or Netflix different rates than Steam or Dropbox for the same total number of bytes transfered? I’ve already paid my ISP for both up and down transit to the peering point. The service provider (Netflix, Amazon, Steam, etc) also pay someone for a connection to a peering point (or undergo that expense directly), so again, why should they have to pay my ISP for traffic that is already paid for by me and them? I distinctly see the lack of a free ride anywhere in the system as it currently stands. I pay my ISP for a 1 gbit connection to a peering point, I buy a 100mbit 8k HD video stream from a streaming service who is paying someone for transit from their datacenter to the peering point. Both sides pay the peering point mainenance fees. Where in this is someone getting a free ride?
- betaby 8y ago
  "I pay my ISP for a 1 gbit connection to a peering point" there are two problems with that. Try to order last mile to peeing point to know the prise. Second one what to do if network is not on your local peering pint. Let's say you are watching Italian parliament live stream from USA. Should eyeballs carry all the cost for transatlantic infra or should Italian broadcaster pay for transatlantic traffic?
  - extrapickles 8y ago
    Without the service provided by my ISP, I would have to pay ~$240/mo to get a 10 gbit port at the nearest exchange/peering point (seattleix), then rent part of some dark fiber that goes out to near where I am ($2-10k/mo depending on details), then sell internet to 199 of my neighbors (using standard 20x oversubscription rate) at $80/gbit. Even if getting the fiber to near me cost $10k/mo and ~$1k/mo to attach my cables to all of the telephone poles in the neighborhood, it leaves me ~$5k in 'profit' (would come out as a wash after all of the other business expenses, drawing a salary and paying back initial capitial). I would make more money if I offered 100mbit plans for $60/mo and/or increased the contention ratio. For the second case, the streaming service buys transit from a Tier 1 backbone provider[0]. In order to be Tier 1 you have to have connectivity to all of the major peering points on the internet. If I wanted really nice internet (eg: for gaming), I would buy transit from one or more Tier 1 providers. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network
Dylan16807 8y ago
> that means that every data center should be getting free bandwidth from ISPs, since that traffic is requested by the customer More or less! If the ISP is already in the data center, they should freely peer with just about anyone that's providing data their users request. Even if they're not in that datacenter, datacenter bandwidth is cheap, and should be cheap, because it's very easy to get from a datacenter to the internet core in bulk. > Basically you create 8K streaming service and DEMAND ISP to give you interconnect and they MUST deliver that content to the end users and recover cost on the end customer side. If you get your data to the peering point, yes, that should be viable. That's explicitly what the end user pays for, everything between their modem and the internet. A streaming company doing that is basically being their own ISP. And there's no reason for one ISP to pay another in this situation.
- betaby 8y ago
  One ISP do not pay another same sized ISP is they maintain in and out traffic ratios aka settlement free peering.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Remember, Netflix could always have their clients sent back a bunch of random garbage data to make the peering balanced. So it doesn't really make sense to argue that they should pay because of the ratio. It's the end users that are responsible for the Netflix traffic, they're requesting every byte.

by betaby 8y ago

ryanobjc 8y ago

I literally don't know what to make of this disingenuous argument. Of course delivering traffic to the end customer is expensive. That's why customers are paying for that. ISPs just want to get paid on both sides, and extract a new rent out of their (government created and paid for) monopolies.

betaby 8y ago
Not really both sides, it's balance, I would say ISP recover about 80% from the end customers (eyeballs) and 20% from the data centres, CDNs, Cloud providers. Big and popular guys like Google pretty often get settlement free peering in major metros.
- iforgotpassword 8y ago
  Why that nonsense? The ISP has to create a sustainable business model by setting the pricing for the customer properly. If the market changes, eg streaming becomes a thing, they have to adjust prices accordingly, not try to charge other parties. The net has always been unfair in that not everyone was charged exactly according to what cost they generated. We couldn't have flat rates if it weren't for that. Even before that we mostly charged people by time spent online instead of traffic generated, which doesn't make too much sense either and mostly was just carried over from the analogue modem days.
  - betaby 8y ago
    Because it's not really a nonsense. It's an asymmetry in the multiple places. We can turn it around and say, let's customers (eyeballs) pay zero and content generators pay all the expenses. By asymmetry I mean that -who's calling who? With telephone it's established practice that one who calls pay, and what works. With traffic we may pretend the same thing, one who sends let say GET - pays, but that super complex technically. Another option is to pay only by outgoing traffic, that eliminates doble dipping. So in this case, because of asymmetry most of traffic should be paid by Google. Alternatively, let's pay by incoming - in this case customer pays a lot and Google nothing. Tables turned in case on Backblaze - customers should pay zero. I love bashing ISP like other guy, yet situation is much complex then we a tryong to pretend it is.

woah 8y ago

This is a terrible argument. The customer is already paying for the connection to their house. The issues that ISPs are having is that they advertised an unlimited data cap at a certain speed, and with video services, customers are making use of it. The ISPs would now like to blame the services that the customers are using on their unlimited connection. The honest thing for the ISPs to do is either: 1. Build out the capacity to service the unlimited connections they advertise. Or 2. Stop advertising unlimited connections.

extrapickles 8y ago

If it truely was a problem, the peering agreements would not be for peanuts. I paying my ISP for a connection to a peering point, why should they be able to charge Amazon or Netflix different rates than Steam or Dropbox for the same total number of bytes transfered? I’ve already paid my ISP for both up and down transit to the peering point. The service provider (Netflix, Amazon, Steam, etc) also pay someone for a connection to a peering point (or undergo that expense directly), so again, why should they have to pay my ISP for traffic that is already paid for by me and them? I distinctly see the lack of a free ride anywhere in the system as it currently stands. I pay my ISP for a 1 gbit connection to a peering point, I buy a 100mbit 8k HD video stream from a streaming service who is paying someone for transit from their datacenter to the peering point. Both sides pay the peering point mainenance fees. Where in this is someone getting a free ride?

betaby 8y ago
"I pay my ISP for a 1 gbit connection to a peering point" there are two problems with that. Try to order last mile to peeing point to know the prise. Second one what to do if network is not on your local peering pint. Let's say you are watching Italian parliament live stream from USA. Should eyeballs carry all the cost for transatlantic infra or should Italian broadcaster pay for transatlantic traffic?
- extrapickles 8y ago
  Without the service provided by my ISP, I would have to pay ~$240/mo to get a 10 gbit port at the nearest exchange/peering point (seattleix), then rent part of some dark fiber that goes out to near where I am ($2-10k/mo depending on details), then sell internet to 199 of my neighbors (using standard 20x oversubscription rate) at $80/gbit. Even if getting the fiber to near me cost $10k/mo and ~$1k/mo to attach my cables to all of the telephone poles in the neighborhood, it leaves me ~$5k in 'profit' (would come out as a wash after all of the other business expenses, drawing a salary and paying back initial capitial). I would make more money if I offered 100mbit plans for $60/mo and/or increased the contention ratio. For the second case, the streaming service buys transit from a Tier 1 backbone provider[0]. In order to be Tier 1 you have to have connectivity to all of the major peering points on the internet. If I wanted really nice internet (eg: for gaming), I would buy transit from one or more Tier 1 providers. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network

Dylan16807 8y ago

> that means that every data center should be getting free bandwidth from ISPs, since that traffic is requested by the customer More or less! If the ISP is already in the data center, they should freely peer with just about anyone that's providing data their users request. Even if they're not in that datacenter, datacenter bandwidth is cheap, and should be cheap, because it's very easy to get from a datacenter to the internet core in bulk. > Basically you create 8K streaming service and DEMAND ISP to give you interconnect and they MUST deliver that content to the end users and recover cost on the end customer side. If you get your data to the peering point, yes, that should be viable. That's explicitly what the end user pays for, everything between their modem and the internet. A streaming company doing that is basically being their own ISP. And there's no reason for one ISP to pay another in this situation.

betaby 8y ago
One ISP do not pay another same sized ISP is they maintain in and out traffic ratios aka settlement free peering.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Remember, Netflix could always have their clients sent back a bunch of random garbage data to make the peering balanced. So it doesn't really make sense to argue that they should pay because of the ratio. It's the end users that are responsible for the Netflix traffic, they're requesting every byte.