No one's ever showed that Comcast was singling out Netflix to slow down while letting everything else from that peer through.
Comcast, Verizon, Sprint, Level 3, etc. didn't all drop peer links at one time or another with Cogent just out of spite. They did it when traffic ratios became imbalanced long enough and seriously enough without being addressed by the peer causing the imbalance.
If those companies were actually throttling specific traffic from one customer of that peer, that peer would have grounds for legal action if it was paid peering, or terminating the settlement free agreement.
My analogy to try and explain some of this to people who don't know peering works was:
You have two cities, each with their own telephone company The two cities are similar in size and the telephone companies connect to each other without charging the other since the same number of calls go in either direction. This settlement free connection is mutually beneficial and the two companies work together to increase the link capacity when the traffic numbers justify it.
One day, a large subscription based call enter opens up in City #2. Their business model is to call people up to 30 times a day with updates on things, to say hi, or to just talk about whatever the customer wants. Even though 80% of their prospective customers are in City #1, They chose city #2 because they got a really good deal on phone service.
Phone Company #1 begins to complain about the huge call imbalance on the link. Their inbound lines are heavily saturated, and their internal links are even getting a little congested with all the calls from City #2.
Their suggestions are for Phone Company #2 to throttle the number of calls destined to city #1 to keep the ratio balanced, OR for Company #2 to pay for the excess call volume.
The people here screaming for Net Neutrality would tell us that Phone Company #1 is extorting the call center. They'll complain that #1 should just just tolerate the excess traffic, add extra links to the peer connection to address saturation, and then grow their internal network to handle it. Apparently it's OK to make ALL customers of City #1 pay for the traffic demands of a select few, effectively subsidizing the business model of the call center.
In a more reasonable scenario, the call center would buy phone service where the bulk of their customers are. This would allow the phone company in #1 to properly build out its internal network with the costs being bourne by the users demanding the growth (the call center).
Netflix was the bad guy in all of this. Unlike every other major streaming provider, they chose not to buy transit appropriate for their traffic numbers.
There was no reason for traffic on the level that Netflix was generating to be entering the network of major ISPs via peer links. No one can ever show that Netflix, and only Netflix, was deliberately slowed down. What can be shown is that Netflix transit provider(s) either had their settlement free links dropped due to long term traffic imbalances, OR the paid links saturated when they hit their paid limit.
If an ISP had actually singled out Netflix to be throttled, it would have been very easy for their transit provider to take action depending on the peering agreement they had with the throttling ISP. Paid peering agreements don't let the other side interfere with traffic barring criminal activity, network disruption, etc. Settlement free agreements are for companies with equal traffic exchange - for one side to deliberately sabotage the traffic of a customer from the other would mean risking losing connection that benefits them as much as it does the other side.
If an ISP was being paid by Netflix for transit and began artificially slowing the traffic, that would be ground for a contract breach lawsuit.
None of this happened because Netflix transit providers all knew what they were doing and wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in court.
Followed by lawsuits from paying peers and/or the end of settlement free peering agreements that benefit that ISP. ISPs can't just demand that a site pay them more or get throttled without being sued.
They can't show it. Most also demonstrate that they know little to nothing about how internet providers interconnect.
If an ISP were actually selectively throttling some traffic from a specific site, there would be serious fallout. If the site was buying transit from a paying peer, that peer would not put up with that sort of contract breach, especially when it affected their customers. Paid peering agreements don't allow the other side to interfere with the traffic unless a crime is being committed, the bandwidth is exceeding the agreed limits, etc.
Settlement free peers would have grounds to drop the link and hurt the company as much as they are being hurt. Settlement free peering agreements only allow throttling or speed reductions when the traffic exchange is severely imbalanced and other attempts to rectify have failed, crime, etc. If the site's ISP has a settlement free agreement and they are violating it by sending far more traffic towards a peer than they are receiving, they need to fix that or pay for the excess.
If the site is buying transit directly from the ISP, and that ISP is throttling them unless they pay more, that's grounds for a lawsuit. This is, of course, assuming that the site isn't exceeding their paid bandwidth limits.
Netflix was the cheapskate buying transit from other shitty providers and then acting like they had nothing to with the congestion issues that arose between their ISP and the ISP(s) of their customers.
There's a reason that Cogent kept seeing its peer link dropped by other ISPs - Cogent was abusing its peering agreements.
If Comcast, Verizon, Sprint were dropping the peer link on a paid peer that did nothing wrong, they would have been sued. If they were dropping a settlement free link on a peer that did nothing wrong, that peer would have said something and not quietly acted like they were doing nothing wrong. All the info provided by the other companies shows huge imbalances on settlement free links and saturation on paid ones.
It's also quite telling that only Netflix had this problem - Amazon, Youtube, Hulu, etc. somehow managed to choose transit options appropriate to the volume of traffic they generated.
If Comcast were to selectively throttle traffic from Youtube, Amazon, Pandora, etc., to their customers, there would be actual contractual issue that could be settled in court - either between the website and Comcast (if they buy transit from Comcast), OR ISP that the website buys transit from and Comcast. Pair peering agreements tend to include requirements that the payee does not interfere with the traffic of the payor unless it exceeds the paid limits, is being used to facilitate crime, etc. Same with settlement free peering.
So, if Comcast does decide that they are going to selectively throttle traffic coming from Amazon unless Amazon pays more, they'll end up in court and losing.
The internet moved away from being like AOL before Net Neutrality. What makes you think anyone will go back to AOL style interne access now that NN is gone?
So they should shut themselves down to bully people into supporting something that did nothing and was pushed by people who didn't even understand what they were pushing.
So many people pushing Net Neutrality talk about these scary scenarios that never happened before NN, and then talk about Netflix and Comcast while failing to realize that Net Neutrality wouldn't have mattered since the issue was network traffic management of an abusive peer, something specifically allowed under Net Neutrality rules.
Also, for Netflix to give Comcast or other providers MORE money implies that Netflix was their customer. If that were the case, then the entire issue would be a contractual one and not net neutrality.
The fact that users are requesting the traffic isn't relevant unless you think that companies who supply content shouldn't have to pay for transit simply because customers of an ISP are requesting it.
Slashdot Mirror
What city is this in?
No one's ever showed that Comcast was singling out Netflix to slow down while letting everything else from that peer through.
Comcast, Verizon, Sprint, Level 3, etc. didn't all drop peer links at one time or another with Cogent just out of spite. They did it when traffic ratios became imbalanced long enough and seriously enough without being addressed by the peer causing the imbalance.
If those companies were actually throttling specific traffic from one customer of that peer, that peer would have grounds for legal action if it was paid peering, or terminating the settlement free agreement.
So Verizon and Comcast were throttling traffic only from a specific customer of a peer. What did the peer have to say about that?
This would sound like a violation of paid peering agreement or grounds to terminate a settlement free agreement.
Please explain how this protection money scheme worked.
So you think that ISPs are or were deliberately throttling or de-prioiritizing traffic from specific sources?
Which specific cases are you referring to?
How would this extra charging actually be accomplished?
My analogy to try and explain some of this to people who don't know peering works was:
You have two cities, each with their own telephone company
The two cities are similar in size and the telephone companies connect to each other without charging the other since the same number of calls go in either direction. This settlement free connection is mutually beneficial and the two companies work together to increase the link capacity when the traffic numbers justify it.
One day, a large subscription based call enter opens up in City #2. Their business model is to call people up to 30 times a day with updates on things, to say hi, or to just talk about whatever the customer wants. Even though 80% of their prospective customers are in City #1, They chose city #2 because they got a really good deal on phone service.
Phone Company #1 begins to complain about the huge call imbalance on the link. Their inbound lines are heavily saturated, and their internal links are even getting a little congested with all the calls from City #2.
Their suggestions are for Phone Company #2 to throttle the number of calls destined to city #1 to keep the ratio balanced, OR for Company #2 to pay for the excess call volume.
The people here screaming for Net Neutrality would tell us that Phone Company #1 is extorting the call center. They'll complain that #1 should just just tolerate the excess traffic, add extra links to the peer connection to address saturation, and then grow their internal network to handle it. Apparently it's OK to make ALL customers of City #1 pay for the traffic demands of a select few, effectively subsidizing the business model of the call center.
In a more reasonable scenario, the call center would buy phone service where the bulk of their customers are. This would allow the phone company in #1 to properly build out its internal network with the costs being bourne by the users demanding the growth (the call center).
Please explain how a cable company would go about slowing down Hulu, Netflix, etc.
Yet another person who doesn't know how internet transit works.
Netflix was the bad guy in all of this. Unlike every other major streaming provider, they chose not to buy transit appropriate for their traffic numbers.
There was no reason for traffic on the level that Netflix was generating to be entering the network of major ISPs via peer links. No one can ever show that Netflix, and only Netflix, was deliberately slowed down. What can be shown is that Netflix transit provider(s) either had their settlement free links dropped due to long term traffic imbalances, OR the paid links saturated when they hit their paid limit.
If an ISP had actually singled out Netflix to be throttled, it would have been very easy for their transit provider to take action depending on the peering agreement they had with the throttling ISP. Paid peering agreements don't let the other side interfere with traffic barring criminal activity, network disruption, etc.
Settlement free agreements are for companies with equal traffic exchange - for one side to deliberately sabotage the traffic of a customer from the other would mean risking losing connection that benefits them as much as it does the other side.
If an ISP was being paid by Netflix for transit and began artificially slowing the traffic, that would be ground for a contract breach lawsuit.
None of this happened because Netflix transit providers all knew what they were doing and wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in court.
I had no idea things were that bad before NN.
Followed by lawsuits from paying peers and/or the end of settlement free peering agreements that benefit that ISP. ISPs can't just demand that a site pay them more or get throttled without being sued.
They can't show it. Most also demonstrate that they know little to nothing about how internet providers interconnect.
If an ISP were actually selectively throttling some traffic from a specific site, there would be serious fallout.
If the site was buying transit from a paying peer, that peer would not put up with that sort of contract breach, especially when it affected their customers. Paid peering agreements don't allow the other side to interfere with the traffic unless a crime is being committed, the bandwidth is exceeding the agreed limits, etc.
Settlement free peers would have grounds to drop the link and hurt the company as much as they are being hurt. Settlement free peering agreements only allow throttling or speed reductions when the traffic exchange is severely imbalanced and other attempts to rectify have failed, crime, etc.
If the site's ISP has a settlement free agreement and they are violating it by sending far more traffic towards a peer than they are receiving, they need to fix that or pay for the excess.
If the site is buying transit directly from the ISP, and that ISP is throttling them unless they pay more, that's grounds for a lawsuit. This is, of course, assuming that the site isn't exceeding their paid bandwidth limits.
Netflix was the cheapskate buying transit from other shitty providers and then acting like they had nothing to with the congestion issues that arose between their ISP and the ISP(s) of their customers.
There's a reason that Cogent kept seeing its peer link dropped by other ISPs - Cogent was abusing its peering agreements.
If Comcast, Verizon, Sprint were dropping the peer link on a paid peer that did nothing wrong, they would have been sued. If they were dropping a settlement free link on a peer that did nothing wrong, that peer would have said something and not quietly acted like they were doing nothing wrong. All the info provided by the other companies shows huge imbalances on settlement free links and saturation on paid ones.
It's also quite telling that only Netflix had this problem - Amazon, Youtube, Hulu, etc. somehow managed to choose transit options appropriate to the volume of traffic they generated.
If Comcast were to selectively throttle traffic from Youtube, Amazon, Pandora, etc., to their customers, there would be actual contractual issue that could be settled in court - either between the website and Comcast (if they buy transit from Comcast), OR ISP that the website buys transit from and Comcast.
Pair peering agreements tend to include requirements that the payee does not interfere with the traffic of the payor unless it exceeds the paid limits, is being used to facilitate crime, etc.
Same with settlement free peering.
So, if Comcast does decide that they are going to selectively throttle traffic coming from Amazon unless Amazon pays more, they'll end up in court and losing.
Did this happen before NN?
The internet moved away from being like AOL before Net Neutrality. What makes you think anyone will go back to AOL style interne access now that NN is gone?
Yawn.
The internet didn't spring into existence 18 months ago.
So they should shut themselves down to bully people into supporting something that did nothing and was pushed by people who didn't even understand what they were pushing.
So many people pushing Net Neutrality talk about these scary scenarios that never happened before NN, and then talk about Netflix and Comcast while failing to realize that Net Neutrality wouldn't have mattered since the issue was network traffic management of an abusive peer, something specifically allowed under Net Neutrality rules.
Sound like you couldn't get a settlement free peering arrangement. What was their reason(s)?
"Net neutrality prevents ISPs from ratcheting up the cost on companies that have an online fee for service business model (ex Netflix)"
Wrong. Net neutrality would not stop an ISP from raising the rates of its customers.
Also, for Netflix to give Comcast or other providers MORE money implies that Netflix was their customer. If that were the case, then the entire issue would be a contractual one and not net neutrality.
The fact that users are requesting the traffic isn't relevant unless you think that companies who supply content shouldn't have to pay for transit simply because customers of an ISP are requesting it.
Their ISP/transit provider isn't paying or isn't paying enough for their side of the connection or this wouldn't be a problem.