3 ms·

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
        They spent money on upgrading their network, and now that money is going to waste if the ISPs don't make use of the additional bandwidth (for additional money). ISP customers are not suffering, because L3 is just one of many providers. What content does L3 provide that no one else can? And if that's the case, how is L3 not a monopoly in that respect? Aren't we all calling for more competition in this space anyway?
        CocaKoala 12y ago
        I guess I'm confused; in one post you're pointing out that I'm getting a month of 720p video instead of 1080p, but now you're saying that I'm not suffering. If my quality of service is being degraded, is that not suffering in the context of this issue? I'm paying for service and yet not getting it. So clearly there IS an issue, because connections are suffering. Are you telling me that ports between L3 and various ISPs are totally saturated and dropping packets while there are other nicely upgraded connections with plenty of bandwidth to spare? Because I'd like to see a source for that claim if so. L3 doesn't provide unique content; they provide content that ISPs don't have. People ask for that content, L3 tries to provide it, and the ISPs can't accept it. Are you telling me that there other providers and L3 is just shouldering them out of the way? Again, I'd like to see a source for that.
        diminoten 12y ago
        First of all, L3 doesn't actually provide Netflix content, I don't think, so your video stream is unaffected entirely by L3's agreements with any ISP. Second of all, you have no SLA with your ISP, so your quality of service is, "best effort". If you want an SLA, you have to pay, otherwise you're going to get the best that the ISP can give you, which means some degraded performance. That's what you've paid for. If you want better, pay more money. Third of all, you really should read the submitted article. It's very clear you haven't. When you do, you'll find that L3 is the only backbone provider not playing ball, and the other backbone providers are paying, which means that there actually are nicely upgraded connections (I don't know about "plenty of bandwidth to spare"), paid for by the network backbone providers. When you read the article, you'll be much better informed on this topic. I do recommend also reading L3's blog post. There's some good info there, and it provides all the "sourcing" you've asked for.
  - pdonis 12y ago
    > 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 But your contract with your ISP most probably does not guarantee you 1080p Netflix instead of 720p. It basically says something equivalent to "we'll give you enough bandwidth for 1080p Netflix whenever we can, but we don't guarantee it, and if you don't get it, there's nothing you can do about it". Please note that I am not saying the ISPs are the good guys here. I'm just saying that trying to nail them on contractual violations doesn't seem like a fruitful approach to me.
danielweber 12y ago
It's a shared network. It's not bullshit that you don't have SLA guarantees. Business customers get those, and they pay a lot more for them.
- incongruity 12y ago
  There's an old saying in the car world – people buy horsepower and drive torque. Car companies always talk up the HP (even when they're kind of sad for the weight of the car, but I digress)… ISPs sell peak speeds and customers live the reality of the fine print that talks all about it being a shared line and that real speeds will often be lower than the advertised peak… Yes, it's their fault, but no, it's not – expecting average consumers to fully investigate every spec and to understand things like SLA guarantees for every product and service they buy in a world that is growing ever more complex has to end somewhere right? At some point, that total burden becomes unreasonable from a user-centered perspective, right?
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Even the power company -- which, for all its complexity, is a vastly simpler system to model and predict -- turns off my AC from time to time to keep up with load. Availability of a shared network cannot be guaranteed. It's the irresistible force. Even if consumers don't understand, it still cannot be guaranteed. Or, they could each have explicitly allocated pipes. They will pay a lot more for the privilege, though, just like they would pay a lot more for a private road instead of one they have to share with their neighbors.

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
      They spent money on upgrading their network, and now that money is going to waste if the ISPs don't make use of the additional bandwidth (for additional money). ISP customers are not suffering, because L3 is just one of many providers. What content does L3 provide that no one else can? And if that's the case, how is L3 not a monopoly in that respect? Aren't we all calling for more competition in this space anyway?
      - CocaKoala 12y ago
        I guess I'm confused; in one post you're pointing out that I'm getting a month of 720p video instead of 1080p, but now you're saying that I'm not suffering. If my quality of service is being degraded, is that not suffering in the context of this issue? I'm paying for service and yet not getting it. So clearly there IS an issue, because connections are suffering. Are you telling me that ports between L3 and various ISPs are totally saturated and dropping packets while there are other nicely upgraded connections with plenty of bandwidth to spare? Because I'd like to see a source for that claim if so. L3 doesn't provide unique content; they provide content that ISPs don't have. People ask for that content, L3 tries to provide it, and the ISPs can't accept it. Are you telling me that there other providers and L3 is just shouldering them out of the way? Again, I'd like to see a source for that.
        diminoten 12y ago
        First of all, L3 doesn't actually provide Netflix content, I don't think, so your video stream is unaffected entirely by L3's agreements with any ISP. Second of all, you have no SLA with your ISP, so your quality of service is, "best effort". If you want an SLA, you have to pay, otherwise you're going to get the best that the ISP can give you, which means some degraded performance. That's what you've paid for. If you want better, pay more money. Third of all, you really should read the submitted article. It's very clear you haven't. When you do, you'll find that L3 is the only backbone provider not playing ball, and the other backbone providers are paying, which means that there actually are nicely upgraded connections (I don't know about "plenty of bandwidth to spare"), paid for by the network backbone providers. When you read the article, you'll be much better informed on this topic. I do recommend also reading L3's blog post. There's some good info there, and it provides all the "sourcing" you've asked for.
- pdonis 12y ago
  > 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 But your contract with your ISP most probably does not guarantee you 1080p Netflix instead of 720p. It basically says something equivalent to "we'll give you enough bandwidth for 1080p Netflix whenever we can, but we don't guarantee it, and if you don't get it, there's nothing you can do about it". Please note that I am not saying the ISPs are the good guys here. I'm just saying that trying to nail them on contractual violations doesn't seem like a fruitful approach to me.

danielweber 12y ago

It's a shared network. It's not bullshit that you don't have SLA guarantees. Business customers get those, and they pay a lot more for them.

incongruity 12y ago
There's an old saying in the car world – people buy horsepower and drive torque. Car companies always talk up the HP (even when they're kind of sad for the weight of the car, but I digress)… ISPs sell peak speeds and customers live the reality of the fine print that talks all about it being a shared line and that real speeds will often be lower than the advertised peak… Yes, it's their fault, but no, it's not – expecting average consumers to fully investigate every spec and to understand things like SLA guarantees for every product and service they buy in a world that is growing ever more complex has to end somewhere right? At some point, that total burden becomes unreasonable from a user-centered perspective, right?
- danielweber 12y ago
  Even the power company -- which, for all its complexity, is a vastly simpler system to model and predict -- turns off my AC from time to time to keep up with load. Availability of a shared network cannot be guaranteed. It's the irresistible force. Even if consumers don't understand, it still cannot be guaranteed. Or, they could each have explicitly allocated pipes. They will pay a lot more for the privilege, though, just like they would pay a lot more for a private road instead of one they have to share with their neighbors.