If the traffic was heavily tilted from Cogent to Comcast, it's not Comcast's responsibility to upgrade without charging more. If they demand paid transit, people will still complain about toll roads and "paid priority" while Comcast has to babysit the two connections and deal with billing disputes based on what amounts to overflow charges.
Perhaps Netflix wore out their welcome and Comcast no longer wanted to give them special treatment or allow anything beyond paid transit or eating the bottlenecks.
Netflix can't get away with the modern day "babe in the woods" game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they selected their transit provider.
Why should ISP/last mile providers have to absorb or pass along the costs of upgrading their networks to satisfy the demands of the paying customer of another ISP?
Essentially all customers at ISPs must subsidize the desires of the customers who like to access streaming providers.
Netflix and others who operate like this are the bad guys and they full well know it.
Why should all customers of an ISP pay so that some users can have a better experience?
If Netflix (and other content providers) wants this kind of access to an ISPs customers, they can do the responsible thing and pay for transit directly from them.
Yes, it's Comcast's fault that their peer was sending massive amounts of traffic in their direction in what is usually viewed as an abuse of unpaid peering links.
They're also free to throttle traffic that causes the peering connection to become imbalanced and/or just watch as their peer irresponsibly saturates the link.
Of course it would, if the link is saturated, all traffic would be affected. The alternative would be throttling a specfic set of sources, and we know how upset that would have made everyone here.
THANK YOU! Far too many people avoid or know nothing about peering and how a content provider can cause serious problems for the partners of their transit providers.
I stopped being concerned for now because like all movements driven by thin skinned, entitled, whiners, the SJW movement will implode. There's no slight or offense too small upon which a small cadre won't demand that the full weight of the movement be brought to bear.
When some resist as they don't think it's warranted or proper or worthy, there will be butthurt for days as the newly aggrieved subset whines about how the resisting side are traitors, tainted, sell-outs, etc. and they will have to fragment and waste time driving their own campaign against some minor (at best) issue.
Doesn't need to be only wifi. BUT, if the provider had the key they would have to decrypt the call or turn over the key on request.
Nothing requires the provider to interfere with me making an end-to-end encrypted call to another similar phone user. There are reliability issues that would need to be addressed, but it can be theoretically be done
It would basically need PKI or a variant and we know how stupid people are when it comes to accepting unsigned or new certificates. I can only imagine the stupidity induced outrage that would arise when they were told that the bypasses they chose to use left their phone less secure.
The NSA and other TLAs would work hard to compromise any central public key repository, leaving something like direct exchange or NFC the only way to really securely share public keys for the people who cared.
What dealership? Tesla is not trying to court dealers and instead wants to sell direct. They wish to, as you put it, put in the heavy local investment and have no dealers that they could swoop in and steal business from.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, the companies providing transit to Netflix and other streaming providers should pay for the bandwidth being used by their customers.
Actually Netflix benefits by passing the costs to ALL Comcast customers and not just the ones who use their service.
If I were TW, I'd refuse too. Why do I have to allocate space in my datacenters for free for someone who is not a customer of mine?
I'm assuming Netflix doesn't buy transit from TW based on this:
http://bgp.he.net/AS2906
Now that Level 3 owns TW, this might change.
No, it's called one side abusing it's peer link.
Perhaps they originate traffic for certain user agents or devices on different subnets that are associated with different peers.
Agreed, and that's the worst thing about this - that I have to side with Comcast and support their position.
If the traffic was heavily tilted from Cogent to Comcast, it's not Comcast's responsibility to upgrade without charging more. If they demand paid transit, people will still complain about toll roads and "paid priority" while Comcast has to babysit the two connections and deal with billing disputes based on what amounts to overflow charges.
Perhaps Netflix wore out their welcome and Comcast no longer wanted to give them special treatment or allow anything beyond paid transit or eating the bottlenecks.
If they moved the traffic to paid transit, we'd hear the same things about toll roads and priority and everything else.
Netflix can't get away with the modern day "babe in the woods" game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they selected their transit provider.
Why should ISP/last mile providers have to absorb or pass along the costs of upgrading their networks to satisfy the demands of the paying customer of another ISP?
Essentially all customers at ISPs must subsidize the desires of the customers who like to access streaming providers.
Netflix and others who operate like this are the bad guys and they full well know it.
Why should all customers of an ISP pay so that some users can have a better experience?
If Netflix (and other content providers) wants this kind of access to an ISPs customers, they can do the responsible thing and pay for transit directly from them.
Yes, it's Comcast's fault that their peer was sending massive amounts of traffic in their direction in what is usually viewed as an abuse of unpaid peering links.
How do you propose they manage those bottlenecks? Throttling?
They're also free to throttle traffic that causes the peering connection to become imbalanced and/or just watch as their peer irresponsibly saturates the link.
Why should they have to keep paying to upgrade so that the paying customer of another ISP can have a better experience?
Maybe they were tired of dealing with an unreasonable company and didn't want to extend special treatment to them.
Of course it would, if the link is saturated, all traffic would be affected. The alternative would be throttling a specfic set of sources, and we know how upset that would have made everyone here.
Why should Comcast have to pay to upgrade so that even more traffic from a paying customer of another ISP can traverse their network?
THANK YOU! Far too many people avoid or know nothing about peering and how a content provider can cause serious problems for the partners of their transit providers.
They can call themselves whatever they want, it doesn't make it true.
Careful, your tolerance and understanding is showing.
I stopped being concerned for now because like all movements driven by thin skinned, entitled, whiners, the SJW movement will implode. There's no slight or offense too small upon which a small cadre won't demand that the full weight of the movement be brought to bear.
When some resist as they don't think it's warranted or proper or worthy, there will be butthurt for days as the newly aggrieved subset whines about how the resisting side are traitors, tainted, sell-outs, etc. and they will have to fragment and waste time driving their own campaign against some minor (at best) issue.
Doesn't need to be only wifi. BUT, if the provider had the key they would have to decrypt the call or turn over the key on request.
Nothing requires the provider to interfere with me making an end-to-end encrypted call to another similar phone user. There are reliability issues that would need to be addressed, but it can be theoretically be done
It would basically need PKI or a variant and we know how stupid people are when it comes to accepting unsigned or new certificates. I can only imagine the stupidity induced outrage that would arise when they were told that the bypasses they chose to use left their phone less secure.
The NSA and other TLAs would work hard to compromise any central public key repository, leaving something like direct exchange or NFC the only way to really securely share public keys for the people who cared.
They are not required to deny/forbid the use of encryption on phone calls.
What dealership? Tesla is not trying to court dealers and instead wants to sell direct. They wish to, as you put it, put in the heavy local investment and have no dealers that they could swoop in and steal business from.