4 ms·
No, the problem is that the ISP's network does not have sufficient capacity at that particular endpoint to receive the traffic pulled (and paid for) by its cust
by cs702 12y ago
No, the problem is that the ISP's network does not have sufficient capacity at that particular endpoint to receive the traffic pulled (and paid for) by its customers. The bottleneck at that endpoint is the ISP.
--
PS. Travel is far too different to use in an analogy -- e.g., it doesn't involve delivery of continuous services to customer premises.
- rayiner 12y agoYour analogy paints the internet as a distribution system, with some fungible commodity (water, electricity) flowing from sources to sinks. That may be how Netflix uses the internet, but that's not how the internet is designed. It's designed to be a mesh, with nodes being peers to each other. The distributed structure of ownership isn't an accident of history. The internet was designed around that structure. Its much more like the hub and spoke airport system then a water distribution system. And as in the airport system, its not the sole responsiblity of the most popular destinations to pay to upgrade congested hub nodes.
- cs702 12y agoYes, my analogy paints the internet as a distribution system for a fungible commodity, because bits ARE a fungible commodity, just like water and electricity. A 1 is indistinguishable from every other 1, and a 0 is indistinguishable from every other 0. In case it's not obvious, I agree that ISPs are NOT reponsible for upgrading infrastructure outside their network. What I'm saying is that ISPs are responsible for upgrading their network so it has sufficient capacity to receive the traffic pulled (and paid for) by ISP customers.