3 ms·

Netflix is far from innocent. Remember when they totally ignored existing peering agreements and tried to force Verizon to pay for upgrades to pipes that were o

by 0xy 6y ago

Netflix is far from innocent. Remember when they totally ignored existing peering agreements and tried to force Verizon to pay for upgrades to pipes that were overloaded because of their traffic? Netflix is a freeloader. Peering agreements, which by the way have been around for decades, state clearly that nobody pays as long as the pipe is used equally. Netflix's bandwidth providers sent way more than they received and refused to cough up for upgrades. Aside from "Verizon bad because big ISP", they were in the right. You want a fat pipe because of your obnoxiously bandwidth heavy service, pay for it.

wtallis 6y ago
> Remember when they totally ignored existing peering agreements and tried to force Verizon to pay for upgrades to pipes that were overloaded because of their traffic? I recall Netflix's ISP offering to pay the entire cost of the upgrades at at least one of the overloaded peering points. And I recall Verizon trying to mislead the public about where the congestion was occurring (it mostly wasn't internal to their networks, but was at the interconnects to Netflix's ISP). > Peering agreements, which by the way have been around for decades, state clearly that nobody pays as long as the pipe is used equally. Netflix's bandwidth providers sent way more than they received and refused to cough up for upgrades. Verizon and other residential ISPs built out their networks in such a way that it was not possible for traffic to be at all close to symmetric. If Netflix had added code to their site to generate artificial upload traffic, it wouldn't have been possible for that to match the download traffic. Why should those last-mile residential ISPs get to use traffic asymmetry as an excuse when they're at least as responsible for breaking the traditions that applied to peering between transit providers?

by 0xy 6y ago

wtallis 6y ago

> Remember when they totally ignored existing peering agreements and tried to force Verizon to pay for upgrades to pipes that were overloaded because of their traffic? I recall Netflix's ISP offering to pay the entire cost of the upgrades at at least one of the overloaded peering points. And I recall Verizon trying to mislead the public about where the congestion was occurring (it mostly wasn't internal to their networks, but was at the interconnects to Netflix's ISP). > Peering agreements, which by the way have been around for decades, state clearly that nobody pays as long as the pipe is used equally. Netflix's bandwidth providers sent way more than they received and refused to cough up for upgrades. Verizon and other residential ISPs built out their networks in such a way that it was not possible for traffic to be at all close to symmetric. If Netflix had added code to their site to generate artificial upload traffic, it wouldn't have been possible for that to match the download traffic. Why should those last-mile residential ISPs get to use traffic asymmetry as an excuse when they're at least as responsible for breaking the traditions that applied to peering between transit providers?