4 ms·

Why should the companies pay for it? There are agreements in place for bandwidth between the peering companies and last mile providers. They shouldn’t care how

by auspex 4y ago

Why should the companies pay for it? There are agreements in place for bandwidth between the peering companies and last mile providers. They shouldn’t care how it’s consumed. The issue is not use it’s prioritization. That’s the danger. Netflix pays to prioritize their traffic over Discovery+ or your video streaming startup. Now when it’s busy and the pipe is fully consumed, Netflix is perfect and your company is dropping frames and buffering.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
That scenario will be true regardless, though, because Netflix can and does set up interconnects at dozens of peering locations to skip half the pipes. It's true that it'd be bad for Discovery+ to pay for prioritizing their traffic over yours, and I'm very sympathetic to net neutrality on those grounds, but opponents would point out (as far as I can tell correctly) that ISPs have never really tried to build such a program. Throttling and traffic fees rarely come up except at the scale where the actual components of the underlying infrastructure matter.
seanp2k2 4y ago
They pay to prioritize only because ISPs held their own customers hostage. Links would become saturated (because ISPs wouldn’t upgrade them) and they’d let customers suffer until people running CDNs paid ISPs to upgrade their own damn links. The same ones taxpayers already paid them to upgrade. The same taxpayers that paid the monopolistic ISPs for service. They weren’t double-dipping, they were triple-dipping. Look up “The Book of Broken Promises”. Legislators let the ISPs get away with it and it’s why we have such high prices for such trash service compared to other first-world countries.
nijave 4y ago
The irony here is... Paid priorization is a solution to a problem ISPs created. If they didn't oversubscribe, there would be no market for guaranteeing transit on an oversubscribed network

by auspex 4y ago

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago

That scenario will be true regardless, though, because Netflix can and does set up interconnects at dozens of peering locations to skip half the pipes. It's true that it'd be bad for Discovery+ to pay for prioritizing their traffic over yours, and I'm very sympathetic to net neutrality on those grounds, but opponents would point out (as far as I can tell correctly) that ISPs have never really tried to build such a program. Throttling and traffic fees rarely come up except at the scale where the actual components of the underlying infrastructure matter.

seanp2k2 4y ago

They pay to prioritize only because ISPs held their own customers hostage. Links would become saturated (because ISPs wouldn’t upgrade them) and they’d let customers suffer until people running CDNs paid ISPs to upgrade their own damn links. The same ones taxpayers already paid them to upgrade. The same taxpayers that paid the monopolistic ISPs for service. They weren’t double-dipping, they were triple-dipping. Look up “The Book of Broken Promises”. Legislators let the ISPs get away with it and it’s why we have such high prices for such trash service compared to other first-world countries.

nijave 4y ago

The irony here is... Paid priorization is a solution to a problem ISPs created. If they didn't oversubscribe, there would be no market for guaranteeing transit on an oversubscribed network