4 ms·

Wanted to add a little bit more to my previous comment since I've been thinking about this for a while. The story I heard about broadcast was that they pursued

by mmalone 12y ago

Wanted to add a little bit more to my previous comment since I've been thinking about this for a while. The story I heard about broadcast was that they pursued this sort of peering arrangement with smaller ISPs so they didn't have to pay for transit -- basically to reduce their bandwidth bill. It was really a brilliant move on their part. Since then lots of other large bandwidth consumers have done the same. I'm not against net neutrality but I do think the issue is more complicated than people make it out to be. Once you understand that this is common practice the position of Comcast, et al. does make more sense. If Netflix is saving a shit-ton of money and providing a better service to their customers by peering, and Comcast has less upside, why shouldn't Comcast charge Netflix for the privilege?

RyJones 12y ago
I worked at MSN in WAN-OPS in the 90s. We did exactly that: find out what ma-and-pa ISPs we were paying transit for, offer to run a T1 directly to them for all MSCOM/MSN traffic. Easiest sales call ever.
wmf 12y ago
If Netflix is saving a shit-ton of money and providing a better service to their customers by peering, and Comcast has less upside, why shouldn't Comcast charge Netflix for the privilege? I don't know if we can accurately estimate who's saving how much, and I definitely don't believe anything coming from Comcast. Given that there is no way to reach Comcast customers other than Comcast and both parties have an incentive to lie about their costs, I think zero is the fairest price for such peering.
- mmalone 12y ago
  I don't think your conclusion logically follows. The free market argument would be that the fairest price is whatever Comcast can get netflix to pay (or vice-versa). From a policy perspective I don't see a reason to intervene except that both parties have unfair advantages relative to their competitors (and Comcast basically has a monopoly). However, if that's the reason to intervene on traffic shaping then I think it's a reason to intervene on peering relationships too. I'd love to be able to peer with Comcast, but I can't. That's not fair.

by mmalone 12y ago

RyJones 12y ago

I worked at MSN in WAN-OPS in the 90s. We did exactly that: find out what ma-and-pa ISPs we were paying transit for, offer to run a T1 directly to them for all MSCOM/MSN traffic. Easiest sales call ever.

wmf 12y ago

If Netflix is saving a shit-ton of money and providing a better service to their customers by peering, and Comcast has less upside, why shouldn't Comcast charge Netflix for the privilege? I don't know if we can accurately estimate who's saving how much, and I definitely don't believe anything coming from Comcast. Given that there is no way to reach Comcast customers other than Comcast and both parties have an incentive to lie about their costs, I think zero is the fairest price for such peering.

mmalone 12y ago
I don't think your conclusion logically follows. The free market argument would be that the fairest price is whatever Comcast can get netflix to pay (or vice-versa). From a policy perspective I don't see a reason to intervene except that both parties have unfair advantages relative to their competitors (and Comcast basically has a monopoly). However, if that's the reason to intervene on traffic shaping then I think it's a reason to intervene on peering relationships too. I'd love to be able to peer with Comcast, but I can't. That's not fair.