4 ms·

I just want to reply to your first point. Verizon is not "throttling" traffic to youtube/netflix, it is just allowing peering links to be saturated because the

I just want to reply to your first point. Verizon is not "throttling" traffic to youtube/netflix, it is just allowing peering links to be saturated because the providers are out of compliance with their peering rules. You can read their peering rules here: http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/ http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/ We can argue that it is just semantics but it is more in-depth than "throttling."

wtallis 12y ago
It's entirely Verizon's fault that the traffic exchange ratio is so skewed, because none of their customers are able to maintain a 1.8:1 download:upload ratio except by not using most of the download bandwidth they're paying for. Verizon's trying to hold on to a peering agreement appropriate for tier 1 transit providers when they're mostly a residential ISP now.
- nullrouted 12y ago
  It is not Verizon's fault the ratios are skewed, it may be their fault their policy only has a 1.8/1 ratio. However they aren't throttling but just letting their peering links saturate. Verizon should understand they are a mostly eyeball network and adjust the ratios, I agree. They own the last mile to the customer so they hold them hostage while colluding with other ISPs to do the same. Title II fixes nothing with peering though.
Dylan16807 12y ago
Which part are they out of compliance with? The requirement that traffic be balanced is nonsensical. In a logical sense, all packets in a connection should be 'billed' to the initiator. Raw data rates are a terrible proxy for this, and shouldn't be used at all. So in the case of Netflix, Verizon is responsible for about 99% of the traffic and the only party that should even think about charging for the interconnect is Netflix. Is there anything else that's a problem?
- nullrouted 12y ago
  You answered your own question, the balanced traffic. I don't agree with it either but I'm just stating the facts. However I'm not sure where you get the 99% or anything like that. If I'm Verizon and I own the last mile to the eyeballs you want then I can set my policies to benefit me, which they have. However they aren't throttling and Title II will do nothing about the peering issue or the policies they have set around it.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >I'm just stating the facts. Technically. The problem is that setting the rules so that some providers saturate is functionally equivalent to throttling arbitrarily. Verizon is setting these rules in a way that can't be reasonably complied with, so they are fully responsible for the outcome. It shouldn't be phrased as if it justifies anything.
  - gergles 12y ago
    That's not at all true. Title II means that peering pricing and agreements now fall under the FCC's purview for "reasonableness", which means that the FCC can step in at some future point and make Verizon knock this shit off.
    - nullrouted 12y ago
      Can you show where this would be true at all?
      - gergles 12y ago
        http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0204/DOC-331869A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... , page 3, first paragraph. Thanks for the downvote.
        Dylan16807 12y ago
        Hey don't make it sound like you're blaming the one person prohibited from downvoting that post.
eck 12y ago
> out of compliance with their peering rules I'm not a networking expert so someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but those peering terms also specify shortest-exit routing, in which case the 1.8:1 traffic ratio is necessary to ensure that one peer does not do dramatically more "work" in terms of bit-miles. It seems like Netflix and a consumer ISP are never going to be able to peer with traffic ratio requirements. If the consumer ISP offered best-exit routed settlement-free peering options, though, Netflix could easily comply. It is my impression that a consumer ISPs refusing to offer settlement-free peering with a best-exit routing policy is apparently charging for access to its customers, not charging for access to its network.

wtallis 12y ago

It's entirely Verizon's fault that the traffic exchange ratio is so skewed, because none of their customers are able to maintain a 1.8:1 download:upload ratio except by not using most of the download bandwidth they're paying for. Verizon's trying to hold on to a peering agreement appropriate for tier 1 transit providers when they're mostly a residential ISP now.

nullrouted 12y ago
It is not Verizon's fault the ratios are skewed, it may be their fault their policy only has a 1.8/1 ratio. However they aren't throttling but just letting their peering links saturate. Verizon should understand they are a mostly eyeball network and adjust the ratios, I agree. They own the last mile to the customer so they hold them hostage while colluding with other ISPs to do the same. Title II fixes nothing with peering though.

Dylan16807 12y ago

Which part are they out of compliance with? The requirement that traffic be balanced is nonsensical. In a logical sense, all packets in a connection should be 'billed' to the initiator. Raw data rates are a terrible proxy for this, and shouldn't be used at all. So in the case of Netflix, Verizon is responsible for about 99% of the traffic and the only party that should even think about charging for the interconnect is Netflix. Is there anything else that's a problem?

nullrouted 12y ago
You answered your own question, the balanced traffic. I don't agree with it either but I'm just stating the facts. However I'm not sure where you get the 99% or anything like that. If I'm Verizon and I own the last mile to the eyeballs you want then I can set my policies to benefit me, which they have. However they aren't throttling and Title II will do nothing about the peering issue or the policies they have set around it.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >I'm just stating the facts. Technically. The problem is that setting the rules so that some providers saturate is functionally equivalent to throttling arbitrarily. Verizon is setting these rules in a way that can't be reasonably complied with, so they are fully responsible for the outcome. It shouldn't be phrased as if it justifies anything.
- gergles 12y ago
  That's not at all true. Title II means that peering pricing and agreements now fall under the FCC's purview for "reasonableness", which means that the FCC can step in at some future point and make Verizon knock this shit off.
  - nullrouted 12y ago
    Can you show where this would be true at all?
    - gergles 12y ago
      http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0204/DOC-331869A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015... , page 3, first paragraph. Thanks for the downvote.
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        Hey don't make it sound like you're blaming the one person prohibited from downvoting that post.

eck 12y ago

> out of compliance with their peering rules I'm not a networking expert so someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but those peering terms also specify shortest-exit routing, in which case the 1.8:1 traffic ratio is necessary to ensure that one peer does not do dramatically more "work" in terms of bit-miles. It seems like Netflix and a consumer ISP are never going to be able to peer with traffic ratio requirements. If the consumer ISP offered best-exit routed settlement-free peering options, though, Netflix could easily comply. It is my impression that a consumer ISPs refusing to offer settlement-free peering with a best-exit routing policy is apparently charging for access to its customers, not charging for access to its network.