That ISP would suddenly find they can't talk to Europe or Japan or almost anything other than direct peers. Level 3 is about 20% of the world wide Internet traffic that isn't peered. Many gaming services use Level 3 exclusively because of their superior network that spans USA, Europe, and connects to nearly every country in the world.
Transit prices are dropping because the hardware is getting cheaper. They're still making a profit, upgrades are part of the pricing. Even if you combined Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, you still couldn't touch the amount of transit Level 3 handles. The only thing those ISPs have going for them is having effective monopolies on the last mile.
A good STEM degree doesn't just signify knowledge, but also understanding. Learning how to identify the best tool for the job, or even creating a new tool, requires more than just knowledge.
There is a difference between producing new light and remitting old light. During the dark ages, there were no new light sources, only recycling of old light. That was the argument. Someone was saying there couldn't have been "the dark age" because CMB pre-dates it, which argued that there was light. Well, duh. We know there was light, be no new light was being created via stars.
He said "nothing in that period" produced any light, or very little. There was a time before the dark ages, but it was crazy high energy and short lived.
To get from the Midwest to Cali, my trace route goes to Chicago, then Dallas, then Cali. Maybe with a stronger trunk going through Montana, we can get a route that goes a bit more northern for a shorter distance.
Because of Amdahl's law, a 1% increase in time could cause an unbounded amount of slowdown. You may go from having a cap of 32 cpus of performance to 4 cpus of performance because context switching takes longer, which causes some threads to hold locks longer. In the case of multi-threading, 1% can turn into 10,000%.
iPhones are worth as much as the minimum property value damage during a vehicular accident that requires a police officer. Someone love taps my car, and I have to wait around for a police officer, otherwise I could also get in trouble, but someone steals a phone and police don't care? Phone theft should be treated at least as important as a hit-and-run with a vehicle that involves $700+ worth of damage.
Netflix paid them for bandwidth AND CDN service. Now Netflix is paying for bandwidth, but not getting the CDN service. Kind of a loss as it puts more work on Netflix without saving any money.
Around here, Level 3 charges about $2 per mb for minimum commits of 10gb or greater which is nothing for an ISP selling 1gb fiber to residential, but residential users on average you can over-subscribe you trunk 20:1 without congestion. You could get congestion at a micro level because of a few high data users in a local area, but at the trunk, 20:1 should work fine.
This means you can purchase 100mb of dedicated bandwidth from Level 3 for $200/month, then resell 100mb to 20 customers, while guaranteeing not having congestion "on average"(I guess a port is "at capacity" around 80%, so really they'd need 120mb). Customer could have a burst of data usage, but that's why Level 3 allows burst data by charging on the 95th percentile.
You mentioned 10mb of dedicated bandwidth at $50/month can't be done and that's ignoring the port cost. Well, a chassis with 400 Active Ethernet ports that have 40km ranges and 4 100gb uplinks is going for about $100 per port. The port price is the same whether the user has a 1mb connection or a 1gb connection, because they're all 1gb ports and they always run at 1gb. The port cost does not change.
What about bandwidth? Well, 10mb of dedicated bandwidth for residential users is really only 0.5mb of bandwidth on average for the 95th percentile. So that's what.... $1/month for the ISP at a rate of $2/mbit?
I've talked to a senior network admin, he told me by "dedicated bandwidth", they mean you have non-blocking dedicated bandwidth within their local network, but their trunk and uplinks are sized to 3x general 95th percentile usage. $40/month for a 15/15 line and $60 for a 30/30. They do offer 50/50, 100/100, 200/200 and 1gb/1gb, but the prices start going up quickly after 30/30.
If you're having issues, it's because you're using old equipment. Modern 1gb fiber equipment is freaking cheap.
They actually don't have "residential" lines. All businesses get the same homes. They only have two tiers of service. Business, which is dedicated bandwidth, but you're not supposed to run proper general public servers; and Enterprise, which is a whole other ball game and is like any other company that sells commercial grade SLA'd Internet access. But I can get static IPs on my "residential" line, so fun times, $10 for a/29.
A single $40k fiber chassis supports more bandwidth than the entire USA Internet, but only has to support 400 residential users. Don't worry about having to "upgrade" to support more bandwidth. Netflix says they have a peak bandwidth usage of a bit over 1tb/s, but for $40k, you can bring 2tb/s to 400 customers.
So you have a small city of say 30,000 homes. That will take 75 chassis, leaving you with 150tb/s of total bandwidth. Is 150tb/s really that slow that you're concerned about immediately upgrading in a few years when Netflix goes 4k or 8k? Mind you, this is faster than the entire world wide internet for a small city.
I think you dramatically over estimate the cost of a high speed municipal network.
CDNs do not always have caching servers inside of ISPs, they may have caching servers at a local IX where they can be peered with. Level 3 offers CDN services this way.
Netflix is trying to drop all CDNs and just do direct peering. They have an open peering policy at all major IXs. Networking gets dramatically more efficient at scale, which makes it hard for Netflix to cater to the smaller ISPs. But the issue here isn't actually smaller ISPs, it's the big ones, who can afford the $5k/month for 100gb ports. Yes, so expensive/sarc. Dear lord, how could a large ISP ever survive buying peering bandwidth at $5k per 100gb, plus a one time cost of $6k for the hardware.
That's why I said it should be regulated that this is the case, not that this is the current case.
In my case, my residential ISP actively advertises advertises that this is the case, that I get "dedicated" bandwidth to the Internet and I will not get congestion on their networks or to their transit provider, Level 3.
So now the government is talking about regulating peering. I feared this would happen once someone woke up to how the Internet actually works. I really don't see how any good can come of this.
A simple fix would be to regulate residential facing ISPs to not allow congested links. ISPs may run business connection however they want, because businesses have SLAs protecting them, but residential users do not have the time or professional knowledge to properly protect themselves from being taken advantage of. If an ISP decides to hand out 100mb connection to all customers and suddenly their link to Netflix is congested, then that ISP best fix the issue by either upgrading the link or changing to another link that is not congested.
I'm sure this can be gamed some how, but it would be harder to game than our current system. Just address the issue when it comes back up.
There are thousands of peering points that change from year to year. I'm not sure how scalable it would be to create thousands of new companies that come and go every year, just to decide how a $10k/month interconnect gets charged. not to mention that the data coming over the link is constantly changing. The route the data takes also gets into the equation to decide what's "equal". It's a term called "bit miles".
If Level 3 has to route the data 1,000 miles but Verizon only has to route it 10 miles, then Level 3 can tell Verizon a 100:1 ratio is considered balanced. But the data getting routed over a link constantly changes.
As long as the "slow lane" still allows me my full bandwidth, I see no issues. The only difference is latency, but closeness to reduce latency comes at a price of the party that needs it. A game server may be willing to pay a premium to be closer and have fewer hops, but Netflix may not care about latency as long as their bandwidth is unfettered.
If the "slow lane" starts affecting my bandwidth, then the ISP is not holding up their end of the bargin. They must provide me uncongested access to all of their interconnects. Once the packet leaves my ISP's network, my ISP has no more control and therefore, cannot be directly responsible anymore. Although, they could be indirectly responsible, like making sure they use a quality transit provider or not using overloaded peers to get cheaper routes.
I agree, asking a remote server to not record the data you send it means you trust the server. If you do not trust it, then either to not use it or do not send it they data you're sending it.
That's why you have the customer sign off on the analysis stage, making the customer responsible for any delays if requirements are changed. This also requires that you actually do a good job with the analysis of the needs for the customer. They must be warned from the very beginning that requirement changes after each stage will cause greater and greater delays and costs and the customer is entirely responsible if they change their mind on key points.
Sounds like a good time to replace your lead developer. Proper development only works if you don't have a bunch of unruly kids doing the work.
Slashdot Mirror
You could always peer with Netflix. Going colo or nearest IX is an option that is relatively cheap.
That ISP would suddenly find they can't talk to Europe or Japan or almost anything other than direct peers. Level 3 is about 20% of the world wide Internet traffic that isn't peered. Many gaming services use Level 3 exclusively because of their superior network that spans USA, Europe, and connects to nearly every country in the world.
Transit prices are dropping because the hardware is getting cheaper. They're still making a profit, upgrades are part of the pricing. Even if you combined Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, you still couldn't touch the amount of transit Level 3 handles. The only thing those ISPs have going for them is having effective monopolies on the last mile.
But why are they peering with them if there are better routes available?
ISPs hold a monopoly on their customers, there is no other way to get to their network.
A good STEM degree doesn't just signify knowledge, but also understanding. Learning how to identify the best tool for the job, or even creating a new tool, requires more than just knowledge.
There is a difference between producing new light and remitting old light. During the dark ages, there were no new light sources, only recycling of old light. That was the argument. Someone was saying there couldn't have been "the dark age" because CMB pre-dates it, which argued that there was light. Well, duh. We know there was light, be no new light was being created via stars.
And 10 years from now? Creating these datacenters will create demand for people to move or get educated.
He said "nothing in that period" produced any light, or very little. There was a time before the dark ages, but it was crazy high energy and short lived.
To get from the Midwest to Cali, my trace route goes to Chicago, then Dallas, then Cali. Maybe with a stronger trunk going through Montana, we can get a route that goes a bit more northern for a shorter distance.
Because of Amdahl's law, a 1% increase in time could cause an unbounded amount of slowdown. You may go from having a cap of 32 cpus of performance to 4 cpus of performance because context switching takes longer, which causes some threads to hold locks longer. In the case of multi-threading, 1% can turn into 10,000%.
iPhones are worth as much as the minimum property value damage during a vehicular accident that requires a police officer. Someone love taps my car, and I have to wait around for a police officer, otherwise I could also get in trouble, but someone steals a phone and police don't care? Phone theft should be treated at least as important as a hit-and-run with a vehicle that involves $700+ worth of damage.
Netflix paid them for bandwidth AND CDN service. Now Netflix is paying for bandwidth, but not getting the CDN service. Kind of a loss as it puts more work on Netflix without saving any money.
Around here, Level 3 charges about $2 per mb for minimum commits of 10gb or greater which is nothing for an ISP selling 1gb fiber to residential, but residential users on average you can over-subscribe you trunk 20:1 without congestion. You could get congestion at a micro level because of a few high data users in a local area, but at the trunk, 20:1 should work fine.
/29.
This means you can purchase 100mb of dedicated bandwidth from Level 3 for $200/month, then resell 100mb to 20 customers, while guaranteeing not having congestion "on average"(I guess a port is "at capacity" around 80%, so really they'd need 120mb). Customer could have a burst of data usage, but that's why Level 3 allows burst data by charging on the 95th percentile.
You mentioned 10mb of dedicated bandwidth at $50/month can't be done and that's ignoring the port cost. Well, a chassis with 400 Active Ethernet ports that have 40km ranges and 4 100gb uplinks is going for about $100 per port. The port price is the same whether the user has a 1mb connection or a 1gb connection, because they're all 1gb ports and they always run at 1gb. The port cost does not change.
What about bandwidth? Well, 10mb of dedicated bandwidth for residential users is really only 0.5mb of bandwidth on average for the 95th percentile. So that's what.... $1/month for the ISP at a rate of $2/mbit?
I've talked to a senior network admin, he told me by "dedicated bandwidth", they mean you have non-blocking dedicated bandwidth within their local network, but their trunk and uplinks are sized to 3x general 95th percentile usage. $40/month for a 15/15 line and $60 for a 30/30. They do offer 50/50, 100/100, 200/200 and 1gb/1gb, but the prices start going up quickly after 30/30.
If you're having issues, it's because you're using old equipment. Modern 1gb fiber equipment is freaking cheap.
They actually don't have "residential" lines. All businesses get the same homes. They only have two tiers of service. Business, which is dedicated bandwidth, but you're not supposed to run proper general public servers; and Enterprise, which is a whole other ball game and is like any other company that sells commercial grade SLA'd Internet access. But I can get static IPs on my "residential" line, so fun times, $10 for a
A single $40k fiber chassis supports more bandwidth than the entire USA Internet, but only has to support 400 residential users. Don't worry about having to "upgrade" to support more bandwidth. Netflix says they have a peak bandwidth usage of a bit over 1tb/s, but for $40k, you can bring 2tb/s to 400 customers.
So you have a small city of say 30,000 homes. That will take 75 chassis, leaving you with 150tb/s of total bandwidth. Is 150tb/s really that slow that you're concerned about immediately upgrading in a few years when Netflix goes 4k or 8k? Mind you, this is faster than the entire world wide internet for a small city.
I think you dramatically over estimate the cost of a high speed municipal network.
CDNs do not always have caching servers inside of ISPs, they may have caching servers at a local IX where they can be peered with. Level 3 offers CDN services this way.
Netflix is trying to drop all CDNs and just do direct peering. They have an open peering policy at all major IXs. Networking gets dramatically more efficient at scale, which makes it hard for Netflix to cater to the smaller ISPs. But the issue here isn't actually smaller ISPs, it's the big ones, who can afford the $5k/month for 100gb ports. Yes, so expensive /sarc. Dear lord, how could a large ISP ever survive buying peering bandwidth at $5k per 100gb, plus a one time cost of $6k for the hardware.
That's why I said it should be regulated that this is the case, not that this is the current case.
In my case, my residential ISP actively advertises advertises that this is the case, that I get "dedicated" bandwidth to the Internet and I will not get congestion on their networks or to their transit provider, Level 3.
Even better, they should allow multiple ISPs over the same connection at the same time via vlans, which could be done via tagged or untagged ports.
So now the government is talking about regulating peering. I feared this would happen once someone woke up to how the Internet actually works. I really don't see how any good can come of this.
A simple fix would be to regulate residential facing ISPs to not allow congested links. ISPs may run business connection however they want, because businesses have SLAs protecting them, but residential users do not have the time or professional knowledge to properly protect themselves from being taken advantage of. If an ISP decides to hand out 100mb connection to all customers and suddenly their link to Netflix is congested, then that ISP best fix the issue by either upgrading the link or changing to another link that is not congested.
I'm sure this can be gamed some how, but it would be harder to game than our current system. Just address the issue when it comes back up.
There are thousands of peering points that change from year to year. I'm not sure how scalable it would be to create thousands of new companies that come and go every year, just to decide how a $10k/month interconnect gets charged. not to mention that the data coming over the link is constantly changing. The route the data takes also gets into the equation to decide what's "equal". It's a term called "bit miles".
If Level 3 has to route the data 1,000 miles but Verizon only has to route it 10 miles, then Level 3 can tell Verizon a 100:1 ratio is considered balanced. But the data getting routed over a link constantly changes.
As long as the "slow lane" still allows me my full bandwidth, I see no issues. The only difference is latency, but closeness to reduce latency comes at a price of the party that needs it. A game server may be willing to pay a premium to be closer and have fewer hops, but Netflix may not care about latency as long as their bandwidth is unfettered.
If the "slow lane" starts affecting my bandwidth, then the ISP is not holding up their end of the bargin. They must provide me uncongested access to all of their interconnects. Once the packet leaves my ISP's network, my ISP has no more control and therefore, cannot be directly responsible anymore. Although, they could be indirectly responsible, like making sure they use a quality transit provider or not using overloaded peers to get cheaper routes.
Not honoring robots.txt could land them in a DMCA issue, while tracking you is just recording facts.
I agree, asking a remote server to not record the data you send it means you trust the server. If you do not trust it, then either to not use it or do not send it they data you're sending it.
I'm pro-vax, I get my shots, hat or not.
That's why you have the customer sign off on the analysis stage, making the customer responsible for any delays if requirements are changed. This also requires that you actually do a good job with the analysis of the needs for the customer. They must be warned from the very beginning that requirement changes after each stage will cause greater and greater delays and costs and the customer is entirely responsible if they change their mind on key points.
Sounds like a good time to replace your lead developer. Proper development only works if you don't have a bunch of unruly kids doing the work.