Netflix isn't a customer or this wouldn't be a problem.
What people are really saying is that ISPs should let customers of other ISPs freeload on their networks at the expense of all customers due to the demands of a subset.
There's two parties here - Netflix' transit provider, and the ISP.
Why should ALL customers of an ISP have to pay to support infrastructure upgrades due to the demands of a subset of customers, especially when that issue only comes up because the company generating the traffic has chosen to buy transit from another ISP?
If Netflix would buy transit on the large networks on which it wishes to put massive amounts of traffic this wouldn't be a problem.
Still misses the point. Netflix, and only Netflix, caused this problem in the first place by putting it's traffic on the networks other providers to be sent to ISPs via peer links. Now it wants to solve that problem by pushing companies to give Netflix free space, power, and cooling in their datacenters.
How about no?
Netflix could have chosen to use CDNs or to buy transit directly on the large networks it wished to supply traffic to, but instead chose to use cheaper transit providers that would abuse settlement free peering links.
Why should Verizon have to upgrade anything to satisfy Level3's customer?
There's a reason why this issue is only effecting Netflix and why their traffic is entering the networks of major ISPs via peer links, and that's because Netflix chose to save money by using other transit providers that would knowingly abuse settlement free peering links. They could pay for CDNs and/or transit directly on these networks the way every other major streaming provide does, but then they might have to cut into some of their profits.
No, I would demand that the peer sending all that extra traffic across our peering link pay for that extra traffic and/or pay to upgrade both sides of the link.
What about equal traffic exchange provisions in settlement free peering agreements? It sounds like those end up on the chopping block of pure neutrality.
Netflix customers are only a portion of all customers. Expecting ISPs to upgrade peer links at the expense of all customers to satisfy the bandwidth demands of some is wrong and effectively forces all customers to subsidize Netflix' business model.
Why isn't Netflix buying transit on the large networks they wish to put traffic on to and/or using CDNs like EVERY OTHER major streaming company?
Yeah, when I spend dozens of minutes inching forward on California's freeways that have variable tolling, I just don't get the impression that congestion has been eliminated.
Yup, and people can figure out alternatives whether they be local farming, rail transport, etc. Subsidizing one form of transit hides the costs of it from people.
ISPs already do that on Settlement Free Peering (SFP) links. I've yet to come across an SFP agreement where they didn't have provisions about link upgrades when capacity is reached by BOTH sides.
What they don't have is provisions that say that if one side saturates an SFP link, the receiving side is obligated to upgrade to support that because that undermines the whole purpose of SFP.
If I have an SFP agreement with overage provision and I send twice as much traffic towards you as you towards me, I pay for the overage similar to a straight paid peering arrangement.
Paid peering congestion is purely contractual. If I pay for a 10gb peer connection with you and traffic from my network to yours saturates it, I pay for a higher bandwidth connection or accept the congestion.
No, Neftlix chose to stop using CDNs and instead put it's traffic on Cogent's network with the knowledge that it would arrive at Comcast and other ISPs via peer ports. When those ports saturated, and when Cogent started prioritizing other traffic, Netflix paid for transit directly on Comcast's network; which is something they should have done all along.
If my customersa are saturating the link, I have to pay to upgrade it. If YOUR customer(s) are saturating the link, you pay. In this, Cogent didn't want to pay despite the fact that its customer (Netflix) was saturating the link.
The internet was built on mutually beneficial peering agreements, not one ISP selling cheap transit to another and then expecting the recipient ISPs to tolerate huge traffic imbalances
I just can't wait for an internet where there are ISPs that only service large content provider/generators, and ISPs that only server residential/business customers.
The ISPs that service large content companies can charge low rates and make money because they have no overhead-they just have to connect to their customers at co-lo facilities. None of that pesky running fiber/coax to every customer's premises, no outlays for the various layers of their network.
They can rely on tools like you and other net neutrality supporters to lobby the FCC to lean on the residential/business ISPs (eyeball providers) to continually upgrade their connections to satisfy the incoming bandwidth requirements. This way, all customers of an ISP can pay for the extraordinary bandwidth demands of some, "content provider" ISPs can make tons of money, and companies like Netflix can stop having to pay for CDNs, server space in ISP datacenters, or any of the other things that the other content providers were doing. Everyone wins except for the residential and small business customers who now bear the full cost of the internal infrastructure, AND the ISP interconnects.
That's how the internet is supposed to work, right?
BTW, does anyone who actually understands networking really think that Netflix levels of traffic should be coming to large ISPs via peering ports?
I've always noticed that the same thing happens with necessities. People empty the shelves and resell them at a premium without any news stories about how greedy they are. Bottled water, fuel, canned goods, ice, etc. are all resold at a premium by those who go to the store first.
If a store could raise prices, or "gouge" as you call it, they could afford to pay drivers and shippers from farther away to do special shipments and ensure that the shelves stay stocked. I'd prefer this to facing empty shelves because I forgot to pick something up, or the effects of the disaster lasts longer than my supplies and I get to the store too late
If I were a network operator and traffic from one of my peers from one specific source was saturating my connection, I would deprioritize that traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
*wouldn't
Why isn't Netflix buying transit directly from these ISPs if they wish to push this much traffic on their networks?
Netflix isn't a customer or this wouldn't be a problem.
What people are really saying is that ISPs should let customers of other ISPs freeload on their networks at the expense of all customers due to the demands of a subset.
Netflix isn't a customer, or this would be a problem in the first place.
There's two parties here - Netflix' transit provider, and the ISP.
Why should ALL customers of an ISP have to pay to support infrastructure upgrades due to the demands of a subset of customers, especially when that issue only comes up because the company generating the traffic has chosen to buy transit from another ISP?
If Netflix would buy transit on the large networks on which it wishes to put massive amounts of traffic this wouldn't be a problem.
Still misses the point. Netflix, and only Netflix, caused this problem in the first place by putting it's traffic on the networks other providers to be sent to ISPs via peer links. Now it wants to solve that problem by pushing companies to give Netflix free space, power, and cooling in their datacenters.
How about no?
Netflix could have chosen to use CDNs or to buy transit directly on the large networks it wished to supply traffic to, but instead chose to use cheaper transit providers that would abuse settlement free peering links.
Why should Verizon have to upgrade anything to satisfy Level3's customer?
There's a reason why this issue is only effecting Netflix and why their traffic is entering the networks of major ISPs via peer links, and that's because Netflix chose to save money by using other transit providers that would knowingly abuse settlement free peering links. They could pay for CDNs and/or transit directly on these networks the way every other major streaming provide does, but then they might have to cut into some of their profits.
No, I would demand that the peer sending all that extra traffic across our peering link pay for that extra traffic and/or pay to upgrade both sides of the link.
If Netflix was the ISPs customer, none of this would be a problem.
What about equal traffic exchange provisions in settlement free peering agreements? It sounds like those end up on the chopping block of pure neutrality.
Netflix customers are only a portion of all customers. Expecting ISPs to upgrade peer links at the expense of all customers to satisfy the bandwidth demands of some is wrong and effectively forces all customers to subsidize Netflix' business model.
Why isn't Netflix buying transit on the large networks they wish to put traffic on to and/or using CDNs like EVERY OTHER major streaming company?
Yeah, when I spend dozens of minutes inching forward on California's freeways that have variable tolling, I just don't get the impression that congestion has been eliminated.
Yup, and people can figure out alternatives whether they be local farming, rail transport, etc. Subsidizing one form of transit hides the costs of it from people.
ISPs already do that on Settlement Free Peering (SFP) links. I've yet to come across an SFP agreement where they didn't have provisions about link upgrades when capacity is reached by BOTH sides.
What they don't have is provisions that say that if one side saturates an SFP link, the receiving side is obligated to upgrade to support that because that undermines the whole purpose of SFP.
If I have an SFP agreement with overage provision and I send twice as much traffic towards you as you towards me, I pay for the overage similar to a straight paid peering arrangement.
Paid peering congestion is purely contractual. If I pay for a 10gb peer connection with you and traffic from my network to yours saturates it, I pay for a higher bandwidth connection or accept the congestion.
No, Neftlix chose to stop using CDNs and instead put it's traffic on Cogent's network with the knowledge that it would arrive at Comcast and other ISPs via peer ports. When those ports saturated, and when Cogent started prioritizing other traffic, Netflix paid for transit directly on Comcast's network; which is something they should have done all along.
If my customersa are saturating the link, I have to pay to upgrade it. If YOUR customer(s) are saturating the link, you pay. In this, Cogent didn't want to pay despite the fact that its customer (Netflix) was saturating the link.
The internet was built on mutually beneficial peering agreements, not one ISP selling cheap transit to another and then expecting the recipient ISPs to tolerate huge traffic imbalances
Yeah, with all the stagnation and minimal innovation that arises in such a system.
Define inadequate peering.
I just can't wait for an internet where there are ISPs that only service large content provider/generators, and ISPs that only server residential/business customers.
The ISPs that service large content companies can charge low rates and make money because they have no overhead-they just have to connect to their customers at co-lo facilities. None of that pesky running fiber/coax to every customer's premises, no outlays for the various layers of their network.
They can rely on tools like you and other net neutrality supporters to lobby the FCC to lean on the residential/business ISPs (eyeball providers) to continually upgrade their connections to satisfy the incoming bandwidth requirements. This way, all customers of an ISP can pay for the extraordinary bandwidth demands of some, "content provider" ISPs can make tons of money, and companies like Netflix can stop having to pay for CDNs, server space in ISP datacenters, or any of the other things that the other content providers were doing. Everyone wins except for the residential and small business customers who now bear the full cost of the internal infrastructure, AND the ISP interconnects.
That's how the internet is supposed to work, right?
BTW, does anyone who actually understands networking really think that Netflix levels of traffic should be coming to large ISPs via peering ports?
How about you fuck off?
Cool, they can just live with fewer Uber drivers.
I've always noticed that the same thing happens with necessities. People empty the shelves and resell them at a premium without any news stories about how greedy they are. Bottled water, fuel, canned goods, ice, etc. are all resold at a premium by those who go to the store first.
If a store could raise prices, or "gouge" as you call it, they could afford to pay drivers and shippers from farther away to do special shipments and ensure that the shelves stay stocked. I'd prefer this to facing empty shelves because I forgot to pick something up, or the effects of the disaster lasts longer than my supplies and I get to the store too late
This.
What about all of the customers not downloading that data, should they also pay for these upgrades?
If I were a network operator and traffic from one of my peers from one specific source was saturating my connection, I would deprioritize that traffic.
Were the peering points congested in both directions, or just ingress to Comcast's network?