4 ms·

This is not what is happening. Comcast is an ISP. Just about every CDN out there pays to peer with Comcast to deliver bits faster and cheaper to Comcast eyeba

by davidu 16y ago

This is not what is happening. Comcast is an ISP. Just about every CDN out there pays to peer with Comcast to deliver bits faster and cheaper to Comcast eyeballs. Level(3) is an ISP. Because they carry traffic Comcast customers want they have been able to peer at no-cost to Comcast historically. Now Level(3) is building and selling a large CDN. Level(3) is taking advantage of these existing peering circuits to be able to offer lower-cost CDN than their competitors because they don't have to pay Comcast to exchange traffic. As a consequence, their CDN has grown very large. They now dump far more traffic onto Comcast's network than Comcast sends them. Comcast says their peering policy is based on equal traffic ratios. Therefore, unless Level(3) can balance their peering circuits, they will be forced to pay. This has little to do with Net Neutrality and has been happening between various ISPs over the last 10-20 years. In IPv6 it's even worse. If you have Cogent as your ISP you can't reach Hurricane Electric's network over IPv6 because neither of them has transit and they don't peer with each other. :-(

illumin8 16y ago
This entire model is duplicitous on Comcast's part. They complain when content providers dump too much content on their network. Never mind the fact that Comcast's entire infrastructure is built to deliver lots of downstream traffic. If, for example, a lot of Comcast customers started seeding BitTorrent traffic to L3 customers, generating upstream traffic, Comcast's network would collapse because it is not designed to do this. Comcast should be thankful that their peer is sending them content directly, and that they don't have to pay transit costs from their upstream provider. This is clearly an attempt by Comcast to put up a pay-wall for content from 3rd parties. I've noticed more and more cable company manipulation of CDNs. For example, nothing scientific, but a few days out of each month, Cablevision, my ISP in Connecticut, starts randomly delaying traffic to Akamai CDN which serves Hulu content. It is difficult for me to scientifically prove anything is wrong, however, when the entire Internet is working flawlessly and a few random Akamai CDN content addresses, which just happen to have Hulu content, stop working, or are throttled, something stinks.
- davidu 16y ago
  I guess we disagree. I don't find anything you wrote to be very factual. Most networks charge their neighbors -- be them customers or peers. That means when one neighbor sends traffic to another neighbor via the ISP, they both usually pay. If you call that duplicitous, then every network is duplicitous. Also -- Comcast's network is symmetrical to the head-ends. It's true the head-ends are configured to allow more spectrum to be used for download than upload, but that's easily changed if people's surfing habits changed. I imagine in the future it'll be dynamic, per customer (if we even continue to use this model for cable modems, which I think DOCSIS is starting to move away from).
  - illumin8 16y ago
    Most peering agreements don't work like ISP customer agreements. Peering agreements are usually entirely agreements NOT to charge for traffic which terminates directly on your network. Transit agreements are more like typical ISP customer relationships, where I pay you to transit traffic that has an endpoint on some other network. Ignoring the fact that the entire DOCSIS standard was designed around downstream distribution of content, and simply would not function well if you try to reverse the flow, how do you determine who pays who in your world? If I'm Comcast, do I have to pay L3 because they have content my customers want? Or should L3 pay me because I have customers they want to deliver content to? You see, it is not so cut and dried as "everybody pays for bandwidth." ISP customers pay for bandwidth because they are asking the ISP to transit traffic through their network. Peers typically don't pay because they are both endpoints.
    - davidu 16y ago
      1) How do you know what peering agreements look like? What you write is simply untrue from my experience. I peer with about 200+ networks today. Who are you? Illumin8 me please. 2) Of course DOCSIS works if you reverse the flow. You already have separated spectrum in each channel. The wider one is typically for downstream, but could easily be converted for upstream. As I said, I think in the future it'll be dynamic.

by davidu 16y ago

illumin8 16y ago

This entire model is duplicitous on Comcast's part. They complain when content providers dump too much content on their network. Never mind the fact that Comcast's entire infrastructure is built to deliver lots of downstream traffic. If, for example, a lot of Comcast customers started seeding BitTorrent traffic to L3 customers, generating upstream traffic, Comcast's network would collapse because it is not designed to do this. Comcast should be thankful that their peer is sending them content directly, and that they don't have to pay transit costs from their upstream provider. This is clearly an attempt by Comcast to put up a pay-wall for content from 3rd parties. I've noticed more and more cable company manipulation of CDNs. For example, nothing scientific, but a few days out of each month, Cablevision, my ISP in Connecticut, starts randomly delaying traffic to Akamai CDN which serves Hulu content. It is difficult for me to scientifically prove anything is wrong, however, when the entire Internet is working flawlessly and a few random Akamai CDN content addresses, which just happen to have Hulu content, stop working, or are throttled, something stinks.

davidu 16y ago
I guess we disagree. I don't find anything you wrote to be very factual. Most networks charge their neighbors -- be them customers or peers. That means when one neighbor sends traffic to another neighbor via the ISP, they both usually pay. If you call that duplicitous, then every network is duplicitous. Also -- Comcast's network is symmetrical to the head-ends. It's true the head-ends are configured to allow more spectrum to be used for download than upload, but that's easily changed if people's surfing habits changed. I imagine in the future it'll be dynamic, per customer (if we even continue to use this model for cable modems, which I think DOCSIS is starting to move away from).
- illumin8 16y ago
  Most peering agreements don't work like ISP customer agreements. Peering agreements are usually entirely agreements NOT to charge for traffic which terminates directly on your network. Transit agreements are more like typical ISP customer relationships, where I pay you to transit traffic that has an endpoint on some other network. Ignoring the fact that the entire DOCSIS standard was designed around downstream distribution of content, and simply would not function well if you try to reverse the flow, how do you determine who pays who in your world? If I'm Comcast, do I have to pay L3 because they have content my customers want? Or should L3 pay me because I have customers they want to deliver content to? You see, it is not so cut and dried as "everybody pays for bandwidth." ISP customers pay for bandwidth because they are asking the ISP to transit traffic through their network. Peers typically don't pay because they are both endpoints.
  - davidu 16y ago
    1) How do you know what peering agreements look like? What you write is simply untrue from my experience. I peer with about 200+ networks today. Who are you? Illumin8 me please. 2) Of course DOCSIS works if you reverse the flow. You already have separated spectrum in each channel. The wider one is typically for downstream, but could easily be converted for upstream. As I said, I think in the future it'll be dynamic.