3 ms·

> Most everyone will peer with residential ISPs for free Residential ISP's are typically Tier 3 or maybe Tier 2 providers, and have to get their bandwidth from

by Alupis 7y ago

> Most everyone will peer with residential ISPs for free Residential ISP's are typically Tier 3 or maybe Tier 2 providers, and have to get their bandwidth from either a Tier 2 or Tier 1 provider. These providers definitely charge for traffic to pass into the ISP's network (ingress traffic into an ISP network, egress out of the Tier 1 provider). Without paying that bill, ISP's couldn't exist... and without charging that bill, Tier 1 providers couldn't exist. Tier 1's peer with other Tier 1's for free because it benefits them and allows them to have connections to other networks that Tier 2 and Tier 3 providers want access to. They make their money charging Tier 2's and 3's for that access. > because they control the only network path to their customers Tier 1 providers don't care about residential users. This argument doesn't make any sense. Comcast got away with charging Netflix for ingress traffic because comcast was going to drop or throttle Netflix traffic. Why? Because suddenly the $50 a month comcast was charging wasn't enough to cover the ingress traffic generated by Netflix content into the ISP's network. The decision was to either charge Comcast customers more, or ask Netflix to subsidize that added expense. This also led Netflix to create the Open Connect boxes they offer for free to ISP's. > None of the other customers are going to get a discount from heavy users using less No, but they won't have their bill raised if the ISP can just charge the heavy users more instead. > but hey look, the ISP's own video service doesn't This is because the ISP's own video service's traffic originates in-network, therefore costs nothing additional to provide other than the existing infrastructure costs (there's no ingress traffic to pay for). Netflix (and other out-of-network services) costs more, as previously covered. Open Connect can help mitigate this, but then it's on the ISP to rack the server and pay all the other related costs for keeping it running in their data center... something they might not want to do. Comcast's argument was Netflix was making a ton of profit from streaming content they weren't helping pay to deliver - effectively shifting the delivery cost to the ISP, which was getting stuck with suddenly a bunch of unprofitable residential customers. Asking Netflix to help pay for that ingress traffic burden doesn't seem so outlandish from a network-ops perspective. Either that, or Comcast could have raised everyone's rates... which people probably wouldn't have liked. A parallel would be making an ecommerce business and expecting packages to be delivered to customers for free. The customer pays for their mailbox already (in taxes or directly with a PO Box), and paid for the package, so they expect it to get delivered. At some point, the delivery company is going to need to charge for the service, since there's a cost associated in making that delivery. Either the customer can pay for the delivery cost too, or the ecommerce company can pay for the delivery cost. Either way... somebody has to pay that cost. > only get away with because of the lack of competition. I don't disagree that we need more residential ISP competition in the US.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Residential ISP's are typically Tier 3 or maybe Tier 2 providers, and have to get their bandwidth from either a Tier 2 or Tier 1 provider. You're thinking of the small dial-up ISPs from 20 years ago. The likes of Comcast and Verizon are themselves Tier 1 providers. The other Tier 1 providers' customers are predominantly data centers that want transit to the rest of the internet and aren't themselves (as e.g. Google is) Tier 1 networks. > Tier 1 providers don't care about residential users. This argument doesn't make any sense. Tier 1 providers sell transit to the whole internet, so they have to care about having a path to all users or their other customers will be displeased about not being able to reach those networks. The only path to users on Comcast is through Comcast, and there are enough of them that people will actually notice if they're missing. > Comcast got away with charging Netflix for ingress traffic because comcast was going to drop or throttle Netflix traffic. This is my point. They have the ability to drop or throttle Netflix traffic and there is nothing Netflix can do about it other than to pay them the danegeld, because they control the only network path to those users. > Why? Because suddenly the $50 a month comcast was charging wasn't enough to cover the ingress traffic generated by Netflix content into the ISP's network. The decision was to either charge Comcast customers more, or ask Netflix to subsidize that added expense. They didn't have to pay anything for ingress traffic from Netflix because their transit provider at the time was willing to peer with Comcast for free. > This also led Netflix to create the Open Connect boxes they offer for free to ISP's. Netflix was willing to offer them for free but Comcast wanted to be paid to use them. How does that make any sense if Comcast's problem was legitimately the amount they had to pay to other networks for ingress traffic? > No, but they won't have their bill raised if the ISP can just charge the heavy users more instead. There isn't anything there to raise the bill for since the additional usage has insignificant cost, and there aren't enough heavy users for that amortized amount to be real money on everybody else's bill even if it didn't. > Comcast's argument was Netflix was making a ton of profit from streaming content they weren't helping pay to deliver - effectively shifting the delivery cost to the ISP, which was getting stuck with suddenly a bunch of unprofitable residential customers. Each endpoint's ISP is responsible for carrying traffic to a mutually agreed upon peering exchange where it's handed off to the other endpoint's ISP. Netflix will basically peer with anybody at any peering exchange for free. Carrying the traffic from there to the other endpoint is what the customer is paying Comcast for. Comcast was double dipping, trying to get paid twice for carrying the same traffic. Or get an unfair advantage over a competitor for video services. > A parallel would be making an ecommerce business and expecting packages to be delivered to customers for free. A parallel would be Amazon paying FedEx to deliver packages and then discovering that Walmart had bought 20 million apartment units with doormen and was refusing to accept Amazon packages to the residents of those apartment buildings unless they paid Walmart for the privilege.

by Alupis 7y ago

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Residential ISP's are typically Tier 3 or maybe Tier 2 providers, and have to get their bandwidth from either a Tier 2 or Tier 1 provider. You're thinking of the small dial-up ISPs from 20 years ago. The likes of Comcast and Verizon are themselves Tier 1 providers. The other Tier 1 providers' customers are predominantly data centers that want transit to the rest of the internet and aren't themselves (as e.g. Google is) Tier 1 networks. > Tier 1 providers don't care about residential users. This argument doesn't make any sense. Tier 1 providers sell transit to the whole internet, so they have to care about having a path to all users or their other customers will be displeased about not being able to reach those networks. The only path to users on Comcast is through Comcast, and there are enough of them that people will actually notice if they're missing. > Comcast got away with charging Netflix for ingress traffic because comcast was going to drop or throttle Netflix traffic. This is my point. They have the ability to drop or throttle Netflix traffic and there is nothing Netflix can do about it other than to pay them the danegeld, because they control the only network path to those users. > Why? Because suddenly the $50 a month comcast was charging wasn't enough to cover the ingress traffic generated by Netflix content into the ISP's network. The decision was to either charge Comcast customers more, or ask Netflix to subsidize that added expense. They didn't have to pay anything for ingress traffic from Netflix because their transit provider at the time was willing to peer with Comcast for free. > This also led Netflix to create the Open Connect boxes they offer for free to ISP's. Netflix was willing to offer them for free but Comcast wanted to be paid to use them. How does that make any sense if Comcast's problem was legitimately the amount they had to pay to other networks for ingress traffic? > No, but they won't have their bill raised if the ISP can just charge the heavy users more instead. There isn't anything there to raise the bill for since the additional usage has insignificant cost, and there aren't enough heavy users for that amortized amount to be real money on everybody else's bill even if it didn't. > Comcast's argument was Netflix was making a ton of profit from streaming content they weren't helping pay to deliver - effectively shifting the delivery cost to the ISP, which was getting stuck with suddenly a bunch of unprofitable residential customers. Each endpoint's ISP is responsible for carrying traffic to a mutually agreed upon peering exchange where it's handed off to the other endpoint's ISP. Netflix will basically peer with anybody at any peering exchange for free. Carrying the traffic from there to the other endpoint is what the customer is paying Comcast for. Comcast was double dipping, trying to get paid twice for carrying the same traffic. Or get an unfair advantage over a competitor for video services. > A parallel would be making an ecommerce business and expecting packages to be delivered to customers for free. A parallel would be Amazon paying FedEx to deliver packages and then discovering that Walmart had bought 20 million apartment units with doormen and was refusing to accept Amazon packages to the residents of those apartment buildings unless they paid Walmart for the privilege.