4 ms·

If they were to allow fast lanes, would there be any incentive for Comcast to upgrade regular peering connections? - They'd lose out on fast-lane revenue. - I

If they were to allow fast lanes, would there be any incentive for Comcast to upgrade regular peering connections? - They'd lose out on fast-lane revenue. - Increased peering bandwidth would just be increased costs. - Worse internet video experience supports their Cable TV business.

claudiusd 12y ago
YES, and the reason is the whole basis for the argument around Net Neutrality: traffic through Comcast's peering connections is a result of demand by its customers. Comcast's customers pay for bandwidth and expect to get it when they use any site on the internet, even sites that use heavy bandwidth like YouTube and NetFlix. Any normal business would respond to demand by its customers, but the telecoms have an oligopoly which they can leverage to increase revenues at their customers' expense. If the "fast lane" were allowed, Comcast would have a decent argument for not providing its customers the bandwidth they paid for to high-traffic sites: "we'd love to give you the bandwidth but the Googles and NetFlixes refused to pay for it". That position is totally back-asswards, is a result of their oligopoly, and is not in the best interest of consumers. Comcast will continue to do just fine without forcing companies to pay for the "fast lane".
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
Peering was created because the two peers wanted to send each other nearly-equal levels of traffic. If we have a situation where one peer wants to send alot of traffic and not receive anything in turn, this is a problem settlement-free peering cannot handle. It's absurd to expect Comcast or anyone else to bend over backwards and pay for upgrades so that the other party gets to do this for free. None of them are obligated to peer. If we force this issue, we may get something that looks like a victory, temporarily. And then it will backfire on us. I keep getting downvoted on reddit because I point this out. There are people who claim "but it's still Comcast's fault! Netflix offered them servers to relieve the load"... Never mind the fact that placing servers in Comcast's own datacenters is something they rightly bill companies for the privilege of. No one is being sensible about this, or so it seems.
- cobookman 12y ago
  The funny thing is that Google, Viacom,...etc already pay for ISP datacenter access. Why should netflix get a 'free' pass? Totally agree on the peering aspect, and this is not a new issue. Comcast even posted a video explaining 'free' peering, but sadly took it down (http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/how-internet-peering-works http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/how-internet-pee...). As I've mentioned before though, imagine if you paid a per GB cost. Then Comcast would want more Netflix traffic, not less. Where-as in the current system Comcast could care less how much of your 300GB cap you use, hence them wanting to be paid to upgrade their peering exchanges.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    > As I've mentioned before though, imagine if you paid a per GB cost. Then Comcast would want more Netflix traffic, not less. Unless the cost of handling increased Netflix traffic outweighs the minor profit of per-gigabyte billing. Read my sentence above a few times if necessary.

claudiusd 12y ago

YES, and the reason is the whole basis for the argument around Net Neutrality: traffic through Comcast's peering connections is a result of demand by its customers. Comcast's customers pay for bandwidth and expect to get it when they use any site on the internet, even sites that use heavy bandwidth like YouTube and NetFlix. Any normal business would respond to demand by its customers, but the telecoms have an oligopoly which they can leverage to increase revenues at their customers' expense. If the "fast lane" were allowed, Comcast would have a decent argument for not providing its customers the bandwidth they paid for to high-traffic sites: "we'd love to give you the bandwidth but the Googles and NetFlixes refused to pay for it". That position is totally back-asswards, is a result of their oligopoly, and is not in the best interest of consumers. Comcast will continue to do just fine without forcing companies to pay for the "fast lane".

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

Peering was created because the two peers wanted to send each other nearly-equal levels of traffic. If we have a situation where one peer wants to send alot of traffic and not receive anything in turn, this is a problem settlement-free peering cannot handle. It's absurd to expect Comcast or anyone else to bend over backwards and pay for upgrades so that the other party gets to do this for free. None of them are obligated to peer. If we force this issue, we may get something that looks like a victory, temporarily. And then it will backfire on us. I keep getting downvoted on reddit because I point this out. There are people who claim "but it's still Comcast's fault! Netflix offered them servers to relieve the load"... Never mind the fact that placing servers in Comcast's own datacenters is something they rightly bill companies for the privilege of. No one is being sensible about this, or so it seems.

cobookman 12y ago
The funny thing is that Google, Viacom,...etc already pay for ISP datacenter access. Why should netflix get a 'free' pass? Totally agree on the peering aspect, and this is not a new issue. Comcast even posted a video explaining 'free' peering, but sadly took it down (http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/how-internet-peering-works http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/how-internet-pee...). As I've mentioned before though, imagine if you paid a per GB cost. Then Comcast would want more Netflix traffic, not less. Where-as in the current system Comcast could care less how much of your 300GB cap you use, hence them wanting to be paid to upgrade their peering exchanges.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > As I've mentioned before though, imagine if you paid a per GB cost. Then Comcast would want more Netflix traffic, not less. Unless the cost of handling increased Netflix traffic outweighs the minor profit of per-gigabyte billing. Read my sentence above a few times if necessary.