4 ms·

> 30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. TLDR: Relax, Comcast. You can still intentionally let all your transit ports s

by eck 12y ago

> 30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to interconnection. TLDR: Relax, Comcast. You can still intentionally let all your transit ports saturate every evening so Netflix will blow unless they pay you to peer. Which is what you really wanted to do.

madanosliw 12y ago
But Netflix (or their service provider) probably should be paying to peer. The problem is that Comcast is also in the media game so they have an incentive to use the peering as leverage against a competitor. An ISP should be able to make technical decisions on how they connect to other networks. Unfortunately the big oligopo-ISPs make those technical decisions based on desires other than having an optimal network.
- fixxer 12y ago
  excellent point and a reason why, despite my libertarian leanings, i am happy to see regulation here.
- eck 12y ago
  My point is that they ban explicit prioritization yet ISPs can achieve the exact same result through network topology. It's a huge loophole. Put another way, if I pay Comcast for XX mbps, it should be possible for some company to send me data at XX mbps without paying Comcast. Otherwise what exactly am I paying for? One solution would be to force last-mile ISPs to designate a location for each customer (for example "all Manhattan subscribers => 60 Hudson St") where Netflix etc could peer without settlement only with those customers. Comcast doesn't have to carry Netflix's traffic across the country, just from the nearest IX to the customer. If the customer monthly fees don't cover that, what exactly are they paying for? Any VOD offerings from Comcast would be required to routed through the same points, without routing preference over 3rd party traffic like Netflix. In some sense, that would be a light version of forced cable leasing, since instead of movies, a service could offer a vpn/tunnel to general internet access with better transit provisioning than the last-mile ISP.
  - wtallis 12y ago
    I'm not sure they've even banned explicit prioritization. I've only seen where they ban paid prioritization. They seem to have left it to be decided on a case-by-case basis what to do about claimed good-faith "reasonable network management" practices that have nasty side effects.
  - chatmasta 12y ago
    I see your point but have you considered that Comcast is the only one who controls the last mile routing to any specific customer? By definition that is why the route is called "last mile." Since Comcast controls the ingress to every household subscribed to it, it also controls the traffic rate and can throttle it if need be. However, if Comcast wants its argument to hold that throttling protects network congestion, then it must also throttle the source of the ingress traffic. Otherwise it's just barricading traffic from its destination, ultimately creating a bottleneck that solves no problem.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    OK, I want to send you XX mbps and you want to receive it. You pay Comcast. Am I now entitled to a free connection? It seems that the real complication is the Comcast has such a huge marketshare that they don't need to be competitive on peering. Whereas if they had real competition, then subscribers would drop Comcast and go with an ISP that peers better.
    - wmf 12y ago
      In that situation Comcast has two choices: they can receive that traffic via free peering or they can buy transit to receive it.
      - MichaelGG 12y ago
        Cool, so you buy 1Gbps from Comcast. Then request 1Gbps from 10 different networks, each day, for a month. So you're saying Comcast should setup free peering on the order of 300Gbps just to service you? And buying transit is even cooler! Let's do this, you go signup for 1Mbps from Comcast, then I'll put a server on my own ISP and you can go force Comcast to buy from me. I charge $1000/Kbps.
tlrobinson 12y ago
I'm pro "net neutrality" in principle, but I'm genuinely curious how we expect to achieve true "net neutrality" given how the internet works. Obviously the internet is not a fully connected network, and we don't have infinite bandwidth. Could an ISP could decide to only peer with networks that happen to throttle Netflix, for example? Do we expect the government to force every ISP to peer with any network that wishes to peer with them, for free? Maybe at the "market" rate?
wmf 12y ago
Now that the FCC is grading ISPs on packet loss, intentional congestion isn't going to work.

by eck 12y ago

madanosliw 12y ago

But Netflix (or their service provider) probably should be paying to peer. The problem is that Comcast is also in the media game so they have an incentive to use the peering as leverage against a competitor. An ISP should be able to make technical decisions on how they connect to other networks. Unfortunately the big oligopo-ISPs make those technical decisions based on desires other than having an optimal network.

fixxer 12y ago
excellent point and a reason why, despite my libertarian leanings, i am happy to see regulation here.
eck 12y ago
My point is that they ban explicit prioritization yet ISPs can achieve the exact same result through network topology. It's a huge loophole. Put another way, if I pay Comcast for XX mbps, it should be possible for some company to send me data at XX mbps without paying Comcast. Otherwise what exactly am I paying for? One solution would be to force last-mile ISPs to designate a location for each customer (for example "all Manhattan subscribers => 60 Hudson St") where Netflix etc could peer without settlement only with those customers. Comcast doesn't have to carry Netflix's traffic across the country, just from the nearest IX to the customer. If the customer monthly fees don't cover that, what exactly are they paying for? Any VOD offerings from Comcast would be required to routed through the same points, without routing preference over 3rd party traffic like Netflix. In some sense, that would be a light version of forced cable leasing, since instead of movies, a service could offer a vpn/tunnel to general internet access with better transit provisioning than the last-mile ISP.
- wtallis 12y ago
  I'm not sure they've even banned explicit prioritization. I've only seen where they ban paid prioritization. They seem to have left it to be decided on a case-by-case basis what to do about claimed good-faith "reasonable network management" practices that have nasty side effects.
- chatmasta 12y ago
  I see your point but have you considered that Comcast is the only one who controls the last mile routing to any specific customer? By definition that is why the route is called "last mile." Since Comcast controls the ingress to every household subscribed to it, it also controls the traffic rate and can throttle it if need be. However, if Comcast wants its argument to hold that throttling protects network congestion, then it must also throttle the source of the ingress traffic. Otherwise it's just barricading traffic from its destination, ultimately creating a bottleneck that solves no problem.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  OK, I want to send you XX mbps and you want to receive it. You pay Comcast. Am I now entitled to a free connection? It seems that the real complication is the Comcast has such a huge marketshare that they don't need to be competitive on peering. Whereas if they had real competition, then subscribers would drop Comcast and go with an ISP that peers better.
  - wmf 12y ago
    In that situation Comcast has two choices: they can receive that traffic via free peering or they can buy transit to receive it.
    - MichaelGG 12y ago
      Cool, so you buy 1Gbps from Comcast. Then request 1Gbps from 10 different networks, each day, for a month. So you're saying Comcast should setup free peering on the order of 300Gbps just to service you? And buying transit is even cooler! Let's do this, you go signup for 1Mbps from Comcast, then I'll put a server on my own ISP and you can go force Comcast to buy from me. I charge $1000/Kbps.

tlrobinson 12y ago

I'm pro "net neutrality" in principle, but I'm genuinely curious how we expect to achieve true "net neutrality" given how the internet works. Obviously the internet is not a fully connected network, and we don't have infinite bandwidth. Could an ISP could decide to only peer with networks that happen to throttle Netflix, for example? Do we expect the government to force every ISP to peer with any network that wishes to peer with them, for free? Maybe at the "market" rate?

wmf 12y ago

Now that the FCC is grading ISPs on packet loss, intentional congestion isn't going to work.