3 ms·

This is wrong on so many accounts. An ISP selling Internet access to regular folks sells access to the entire Internet. To do that the ISP connect its network

This is wrong on so many accounts. An ISP selling Internet access to regular folks sells access to the entire Internet. To do that the ISP connect its network to the rest of the internet via a transit connection. All your traffic goes through that unless you peer with other networks. When you peer with them you send less through your paid transit connection. So both parties benefit when they interconnect so long as they send a decent amount of traffic back and forth. There's no such thing as a bandwith hog network. Netflix sends traffic to your network because your users asked for it and they pay you to deliver that traffic. The notion that traffic ratios have anything to do with whether it makes sense to peer and whether someone should pay as long been debunked in the internet context. Those ideas are just remnants from the phone network which operates on a very different economic model, the one that make phone calls cost dollars per minute. Here's a very clear presentation from 2005 from a NANOG meeting explaining exactly why you're wrong. https://drpeering.net/white-papers/The-Folly-Of-Peering-Ratios.html https://drpeering.net/white-papers/The-Folly-Of-Peering-Rati... And you're also wrong but what neutrality is. It's simply the principle that the network that you pay to get online doesn't get to interfere with what you do online. That encompasses lots of behaviors including interconnection.

thethirdone 2y ago
You have not done a good job explaining/proving how they are wrong. Most of your response is only addressing a single paragraph that mentioned Netflix. > The notion that traffic ratios have anything to do with whether it makes sense to peer and whether someone should pay as long been debunked in the internet context. Do note how the comment does not mention peering ratios. An ISP being a "hog" does not need to be determined by the peering ratio. > https://drpeering.net/white-papers/The-Folly-Of-Peering-Ratios.html https://drpeering.net/white-papers/The-Folly-Of-Peering-Rati... This is a very good article, but it does not directly address the above. It is very specific to arguments about peering ratio. If you have no opinions on peering ratios, you have to read between the lines to get opinions on the original comment. In Argument #2 counter argument #1: "This is a valid observation ... This is not however an argument for using Peering traffic ratios to restrict Peering." > And you're also wrong but what neutrality is. Just saying they are wrong is not helpful. You provide no evidence that "Net Neutrality" has not shifted in meaning since the 90s.
- rsingel 2y ago
  Net neutrality was first used and defined as a term in 2002 by Tim Wu in a paper called A Proposal for Net Neutrality. The first FCC work about it was a speech by then FCC chairman Michael Powell in February 2004 at the The silicon flat irons where he outlined the four freedoms, which included the right to use whatever application you want, access whatever content you want, and use whatever device you want. In other words net neutrality as a concept that people talked about did not exist in the '90s.
- rsingel 2y ago
  Google Books Ngram for net neutrality https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Net+neutrality+&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Net+neutrality... Saying net neutrality shifted in meaning since the 1990s is nonsensical

thethirdone 2y ago

You have not done a good job explaining/proving how they are wrong. Most of your response is only addressing a single paragraph that mentioned Netflix. > The notion that traffic ratios have anything to do with whether it makes sense to peer and whether someone should pay as long been debunked in the internet context. Do note how the comment does not mention peering ratios. An ISP being a "hog" does not need to be determined by the peering ratio. > https://drpeering.net/white-papers/The-Folly-Of-Peering-Ratios.html https://drpeering.net/white-papers/The-Folly-Of-Peering-Rati... This is a very good article, but it does not directly address the above. It is very specific to arguments about peering ratio. If you have no opinions on peering ratios, you have to read between the lines to get opinions on the original comment. In Argument #2 counter argument #1: "This is a valid observation ... This is not however an argument for using Peering traffic ratios to restrict Peering." > And you're also wrong but what neutrality is. Just saying they are wrong is not helpful. You provide no evidence that "Net Neutrality" has not shifted in meaning since the 90s.

rsingel 2y ago
Net neutrality was first used and defined as a term in 2002 by Tim Wu in a paper called A Proposal for Net Neutrality. The first FCC work about it was a speech by then FCC chairman Michael Powell in February 2004 at the The silicon flat irons where he outlined the four freedoms, which included the right to use whatever application you want, access whatever content you want, and use whatever device you want. In other words net neutrality as a concept that people talked about did not exist in the '90s.
rsingel 2y ago
Google Books Ngram for net neutrality https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Net+neutrality+&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Net+neutrality... Saying net neutrality shifted in meaning since the 1990s is nonsensical