4 ms·

Twitch.tv, justin.tv, youtube. That's off the top of my head and I'm confident there are more than I'm missing. There are plenty of video streaming services; no

Twitch.tv, justin.tv, youtube. That's off the top of my head and I'm confident there are more than I'm missing. There are plenty of video streaming services; not all of them are as large as netflix, but to say "Netflix is a unique case" is pretty weird. And dropping packets isn't the end of the world, but it's certainly not good. Should we just ignore a problem just because the world isn't ending?

diminoten 12y ago
Netflix is a unique case. No one even comes close to network usage. Not even close. It's a very unique case, given its volume. And I don't know who here said to ignore this problem, but they're wrong too. It's just that this isn't the "It’s insulting." problem the submission tries to paint it as. His solution is to "throw the bums out". Are you kidding me? Why are we wasting our time reading and talking about this tripe?
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  Can you clarify for me why I shouldn't feel insulted that I'm paying for a certain level of service from my ISP, and yet not receiving that service while they insist that it's not their fault?
  - diminoten 12y ago
    Because you actually are receiving the level of service you're paying for, you just didn't know what you were paying for when you signed up.
    - CocaKoala 12y ago
      In what sense? Are you referring to the "well actually the contract just says you pay for UP TO certain speeds" bullshit?
      - diminoten 12y ago
        I'm referring more to the fact that ISPs probably reserve the right to negotiate with peers on their terms in their contracts, not on your terms. You having a month of 720p instead of 1080p Netflix is worth it to the ISPs instead of raising your service prices by $5 bucks every single month.
        CocaKoala 12y ago
        Oh; instead of referring to some bullshit clause in my contract, you're referring to something that's actually irrelevant. That's weird, but okay. I can roll with it. ISPs probably do reserve the right to negotiate with peers on their terms, but I don't care about that because I'm not paying them to have a certain agreement with peers, I'm paying them for a certain quality of service. If they are not providing that service (an example being giving me 720p Netflix instead of 1080p like I have paid for) then that seems like a pretty straightforward contractual violation. I'm paying for service and not receiving it. Netflix is providing the service to the ISP. I am providing my money to the ISP. Why is the ISP excused from holding up their end of the bargain?
        diminoten 12y ago
        This is turning into a flame war. If you can't see how negotiating peering agreements is relevant to a post whose first sentence begins, "There’s a peering crisis apparently happening right now among American Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and backbone providers..." then I don't know how we can continue... The crisis, if you've read the article, is that Level3 is getting shunned by 5 of its client ISPs. The ISPs are NOT shunning other backbone providers, just Level3. So yes, this is entirely a contract negotiation between Level3 and 5 ISPs. This isn't an existential crisis of the Internet, like Level3 is trying to portray it, it's Level3 being shut out of additional business by 5 ISPs because they won't play ball like the other backbone providers.
        CocaKoala 12y ago
        Why should L3 play ball? Just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it a good reason.

diminoten 12y ago

Netflix is a unique case. No one even comes close to network usage. Not even close. It's a very unique case, given its volume. And I don't know who here said to ignore this problem, but they're wrong too. It's just that this isn't the "It’s insulting." problem the submission tries to paint it as. His solution is to "throw the bums out". Are you kidding me? Why are we wasting our time reading and talking about this tripe?

CocaKoala 12y ago
Can you clarify for me why I shouldn't feel insulted that I'm paying for a certain level of service from my ISP, and yet not receiving that service while they insist that it's not their fault?
- diminoten 12y ago
  Because you actually are receiving the level of service you're paying for, you just didn't know what you were paying for when you signed up.
  - CocaKoala 12y ago
    In what sense? Are you referring to the "well actually the contract just says you pay for UP TO certain speeds" bullshit?
    - diminoten 12y ago
      I'm referring more to the fact that ISPs probably reserve the right to negotiate with peers on their terms in their contracts, not on your terms. You having a month of 720p instead of 1080p Netflix is worth it to the ISPs instead of raising your service prices by $5 bucks every single month.
      - CocaKoala 12y ago
        Oh; instead of referring to some bullshit clause in my contract, you're referring to something that's actually irrelevant. That's weird, but okay. I can roll with it. ISPs probably do reserve the right to negotiate with peers on their terms, but I don't care about that because I'm not paying them to have a certain agreement with peers, I'm paying them for a certain quality of service. If they are not providing that service (an example being giving me 720p Netflix instead of 1080p like I have paid for) then that seems like a pretty straightforward contractual violation. I'm paying for service and not receiving it. Netflix is providing the service to the ISP. I am providing my money to the ISP. Why is the ISP excused from holding up their end of the bargain?
        diminoten 12y ago
        This is turning into a flame war. If you can't see how negotiating peering agreements is relevant to a post whose first sentence begins, "There’s a peering crisis apparently happening right now among American Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and backbone providers..." then I don't know how we can continue... The crisis, if you've read the article, is that Level3 is getting shunned by 5 of its client ISPs. The ISPs are NOT shunning other backbone providers, just Level3. So yes, this is entirely a contract negotiation between Level3 and 5 ISPs. This isn't an existential crisis of the Internet, like Level3 is trying to portray it, it's Level3 being shut out of additional business by 5 ISPs because they won't play ball like the other backbone providers.
        CocaKoala 12y ago
        Why should L3 play ball? Just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it a good reason.