3 ms·

Since when does an ISP negotiate peering agreements? It seems like a conflict of interest there, when Comcast's trunk business is actively thwarting the interne

Since when does an ISP negotiate peering agreements? It seems like a conflict of interest there, when Comcast's trunk business is actively thwarting the internet delivery service part of the business. It's like McDonalds charging their suppliers because they're 'sending a lot of product into our kitchens.'

diminoten 13y ago
A McDonalds analogy makes a certain amount of sense, but to make it work, McDonalds would have to be paying nothing to start with for their supplies. Then, the discounts McDonalds does get for buying in such high volume could be seen as "charging their suppliers". Normally, Comcast doesn't pay anyone to be able to serve their network traffic, so in that way they're like a McDonalds who doesn't pay for their supplies, and only acts as a middleman to give their suppliers a way to sell their buns or fries or whatever. So yes, I think you have the right idea. Also, ISPs have been peering both with one another and with others since the dawn of ISPs, as far as I can tell. Frankly, it is unfair, but it's been happening since the beginning. I don't honestly know how one would solve this imbalance - perhaps require ISPs to accept ALL peering requests? I don't know enough about networking to know if that would end well, but I suspect it wouldn't.
vidarh 13y ago
> Since when does an ISP negotiate peering agreements? Since "forever"? When I ran an ISP in '95, peering was pretty much top of the agenda from day one given that bandwidth is such a huge cost centre. The only reason we never tried to charge site providers for peering was that we didn't get large enough before we sold our dial up customers. > It's like McDonalds charging their suppliers because they're 'sending a lot of product into our kitchens.' That's a horrible analogy. Comcast is not selling the chicken, they're selling access to the local roads that gets you to the freeways that can get you to the McDonalds, or any other business. Comcasts customers are not paying for a specific level of access to McDonalds. But since you're using that kind of analogy, many suppliers pay for shelf positions in large super market chains, for the same reasons site site operators sometimes pay ISPs for more direct access: both sides know who is most dependent on the improved access.

diminoten 13y ago

A McDonalds analogy makes a certain amount of sense, but to make it work, McDonalds would have to be paying nothing to start with for their supplies. Then, the discounts McDonalds does get for buying in such high volume could be seen as "charging their suppliers". Normally, Comcast doesn't pay anyone to be able to serve their network traffic, so in that way they're like a McDonalds who doesn't pay for their supplies, and only acts as a middleman to give their suppliers a way to sell their buns or fries or whatever. So yes, I think you have the right idea. Also, ISPs have been peering both with one another and with others since the dawn of ISPs, as far as I can tell. Frankly, it is unfair, but it's been happening since the beginning. I don't honestly know how one would solve this imbalance - perhaps require ISPs to accept ALL peering requests? I don't know enough about networking to know if that would end well, but I suspect it wouldn't.

vidarh 13y ago

> Since when does an ISP negotiate peering agreements? Since "forever"? When I ran an ISP in '95, peering was pretty much top of the agenda from day one given that bandwidth is such a huge cost centre. The only reason we never tried to charge site providers for peering was that we didn't get large enough before we sold our dial up customers. > It's like McDonalds charging their suppliers because they're 'sending a lot of product into our kitchens.' That's a horrible analogy. Comcast is not selling the chicken, they're selling access to the local roads that gets you to the freeways that can get you to the McDonalds, or any other business. Comcasts customers are not paying for a specific level of access to McDonalds. But since you're using that kind of analogy, many suppliers pay for shelf positions in large super market chains, for the same reasons site site operators sometimes pay ISPs for more direct access: both sides know who is most dependent on the improved access.