4 ms·

No, it's not, because the other side also paid for it to their ISP, CDN, or the build-out and operation of their own CDN. What Comcast and friends are asking f

No, it's not, because the other side also paid for it to their ISP, CDN, or the build-out and operation of their own CDN. What Comcast and friends are asking for is a _third_ payment, just because. And don't be mistaken, if they win this battle they will start looking for the fourth payment, which is from their customers for faster service to "premium" sites like Netflix, HBO, iTunes, etc.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- yuliyp 12y ago
  Talking about symmetric links only makes sense when you think about backbone providers. When you're talking about residential ISPs, their traffic is by default asymmetric (residential customers consume bits and request much smaller numbers of bits), but that doesn't mean the value is gained only by the person sending the bits, it's also gained by the person receiving the bits. This doesn't actually make any sense. Let's say everyone decided "No, we're not going to peer with Comcast because it's not in our interest to do so". What would happen? Do you think someone would step up to the plate and say "Hi Comcast! We're going to pay you for the privilege of being your transit provider!" And yet if the asymmetry story is to be believed, it's Comcast that should be paid by a transit provider, right?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
spindritf 12y ago
because the other side also paid for it to their ISP, CDN, or the build-out and operation of their own CDN. That's like saying that you should be able to park for free because you paid for your car, all the taxes on it, and the fee for issuing a driving license. Paying your ISP doesn't necessarily grant you unlimited access to every other network on the Internet. There is no God-ordained fee structure here. It can be split between you, Comcast, Netflix, your landlord (many will pay for laying fibre and then for servicing it), local government... Some may be better than others but there's definitely no moral highground.
- talmand 12y ago
  I'm sorry, your comparison doesn't work for me. I don't see how those even remotely compare. What I was actually sold from my ISP and I'm currently paying for was indeed unlimited access to everything on the Internet. It's called an Internet connection and that's how I interpret what I'm paying for. If the bill can be split between me, my ISP, and Netflix then I want my bill lowered if my ISP is going to charge Netflix to deliver bits I requested. But I won't be holding my breath over that negotiation happening.
  - spindritf 12y ago
    What I was actually sold from my ISP and I'm currently paying for was indeed unlimited access to everything on the Internet. There is no such service. Not only does it not exist, it cannot exist. No ISP can provide that. Any independent network on the Internet can start dropping your packets tomorrow for any reason. Including a lazy admin filtering out your entire country. Or due to a copyright agreement. Happens all the time. If they really promised "unlimited access to everything on the Internet", then you were misled but I doubt their lawyer would allow for it. If the bill can be split between me, my ISP, and Netflix then I want my bill lowered if my ISP is going to charge Netflix to deliver bits I requested Why? It may not be increased. Or it may be increased less than it otherwise would. Or it may be jacked to whatever amount they can get out of you. That's the whole point. There is no pre-ordained price for carrying bits. There is no pre-ordained split between carriers and end points. There is no pre-ordained service level. It's all just a matter of agreement between parties. So now they're negotiating. I don't understand however why some believe they have moral highground because "they already paid." Everyone already paid something.
    - tjgq 12y ago
      > There is no such service. Not only does it not exist, it cannot exist. No ISP can provide that. Any independent network on the Internet can start dropping your packets tomorrow for any reason. Including a lazy admin filtering out your entire country. Or due to a copyright agreement. Happens all the time. The point of net neutrality is that, while ISPs should not be held liable for what other entities in the network do, they shouldn't engage in those practices themselves. In logical terms, that's a perfectly reasonable goal.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

yuliyp 12y ago
Talking about symmetric links only makes sense when you think about backbone providers. When you're talking about residential ISPs, their traffic is by default asymmetric (residential customers consume bits and request much smaller numbers of bits), but that doesn't mean the value is gained only by the person sending the bits, it's also gained by the person receiving the bits. This doesn't actually make any sense. Let's say everyone decided "No, we're not going to peer with Comcast because it's not in our interest to do so". What would happen? Do you think someone would step up to the plate and say "Hi Comcast! We're going to pay you for the privilege of being your transit provider!" And yet if the asymmetry story is to be believed, it's Comcast that should be paid by a transit provider, right?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

spindritf 12y ago

because the other side also paid for it to their ISP, CDN, or the build-out and operation of their own CDN. That's like saying that you should be able to park for free because you paid for your car, all the taxes on it, and the fee for issuing a driving license. Paying your ISP doesn't necessarily grant you unlimited access to every other network on the Internet. There is no God-ordained fee structure here. It can be split between you, Comcast, Netflix, your landlord (many will pay for laying fibre and then for servicing it), local government... Some may be better than others but there's definitely no moral highground.

talmand 12y ago
I'm sorry, your comparison doesn't work for me. I don't see how those even remotely compare. What I was actually sold from my ISP and I'm currently paying for was indeed unlimited access to everything on the Internet. It's called an Internet connection and that's how I interpret what I'm paying for. If the bill can be split between me, my ISP, and Netflix then I want my bill lowered if my ISP is going to charge Netflix to deliver bits I requested. But I won't be holding my breath over that negotiation happening.
- spindritf 12y ago
  What I was actually sold from my ISP and I'm currently paying for was indeed unlimited access to everything on the Internet. There is no such service. Not only does it not exist, it cannot exist. No ISP can provide that. Any independent network on the Internet can start dropping your packets tomorrow for any reason. Including a lazy admin filtering out your entire country. Or due to a copyright agreement. Happens all the time. If they really promised "unlimited access to everything on the Internet", then you were misled but I doubt their lawyer would allow for it. If the bill can be split between me, my ISP, and Netflix then I want my bill lowered if my ISP is going to charge Netflix to deliver bits I requested Why? It may not be increased. Or it may be increased less than it otherwise would. Or it may be jacked to whatever amount they can get out of you. That's the whole point. There is no pre-ordained price for carrying bits. There is no pre-ordained split between carriers and end points. There is no pre-ordained service level. It's all just a matter of agreement between parties. So now they're negotiating. I don't understand however why some believe they have moral highground because "they already paid." Everyone already paid something.
  - tjgq 12y ago
    > There is no such service. Not only does it not exist, it cannot exist. No ISP can provide that. Any independent network on the Internet can start dropping your packets tomorrow for any reason. Including a lazy admin filtering out your entire country. Or due to a copyright agreement. Happens all the time. The point of net neutrality is that, while ISPs should not be held liable for what other entities in the network do, they shouldn't engage in those practices themselves. In logical terms, that's a perfectly reasonable goal.