I agree on your assertions of speech, and its protected nature.
I even support his right to make that donation.
I don't support his right to not have that be seen as an attack against a class of people who are now pissed off at him and intend on enacting socially-acceptable non-violent retribution upon his bigoted ass, and I'm not entirely sure where that right exists within statute.
At least they're not funding an initiative to redefine the word CEO as someone who doesn't have the last name Eich, because then there would be actual moral equivalence, and I'd have to defend his sorry ass.
If the state that holds police power over me has defined God, and I find it not consistent with my own personal views, and the State takes that definition from the Pope, then Yes, I shall ask him to define it in a way that includes me. Thanks for playing.
I don't care that he held that opinion.
Well, actually I do, it disappointed me.
However, he wasn't actively moving to suppress it, and that is where I draw the distinction. Am I mistaken? If I am, then yes, I made a mistake voting for him.
Perhaps though, I saw a man who was close to the edge of changing his mind, and I made the right choice after all.
I wasn't aware OKCupid had funded a voter initiative to deny Eich from holding the office of CEO at Mozilla, backed by the full enforcement power of the State.
In that case, I'm afraid I have no choice but to agree with you!
The problem with moral equivalence, is that it isn't.
But certainly you realize that the people attempting to legislate their religious values against other classes of people aren't as enlightened in their grasp of Christology as you?
I'm a staunch atheist, who is very tolerant of religious beliefs, to the point of making an effort not to antagonize people for them, and I have donated to churches in my area (Seattle) who have made it a point to have more enlightened standpoints like yours, especially with regard to *helping* homosexuals without proclaiming their damnation them (at least to their faces).
I've had excellent conversations with the pastors of those congregations, and I love them as humans.
That said, in my 31 years of existence, well over 90% (from my ass, I know- but I feel the hyperbole isn't too thick) of Christians I have known don't fall into that category. They're bigoted, and the only place they want their religion more than on their sleeve is on the book of laws that governs me.
I do salute the way you worship Christ, though. Good for you, really. I wish more of humanity could hold mystical views with such tolerance of dissent.
Because not everyone has the patience of Dr. King, or Gandhi.
If we did, we'd have more holidays than we could count. There's a reason what they did was special.
Mere mortals tend to respond to people who attack them as if they were enemies. Radical thought, I know.
I think we can all count our lucky stars that the intolerant anti-bigot Lefty Communofascialists have not responded in kind with the bigots and attempted to legislate against their franchise, or perhaps lynch them. They seem to be responding at this moment by exercising *their* free speech;)
Not just any action.
One could argue, very reasonably, that the specific action serves as casus belli.
He didn't vote to re-purpose National Park land, he voted to deny a group of people that ability to do something that did not affect him in any protected way.
It's like me supporting a proposition that bans people with the surname Eich cannot be employeed by a corporation as CEO.
It is personal, no matter how you swing it, it's an artillery volley in a civil rights war.
I would perhaps at least see merit in the argument against gay marriage if it had some kind of scientifically proven detrimental effect on... someone, but it doesn't. The court case transcripts are available. There was no legitimate argument, only spaghetti thrown at the wall in desperate hope that some of it would stick.
Moral relativism is dangerous. His speech may be free, but he has no right for his belligerent attack to go unresponded-to. The man is a bigot. He may not realize it, but he is. Down to the core. He feels he can legislate the natural rights of another person because he disapproves of it, without presenting any evidence whatsoever that it harms anything but the pride he holds in his Book.
I'm not so sure... While he certainly combined his answer to the parent's contentions with an insult, I'd say it's inaccurate to say "rather than", thus I have to see him as being right- It's not a synonym for "insult".
In my experience, most are Broadcom MIPS SOCs.
ARMs are a distant second in the segment. (Again, in my experience.)
MIPS is a bizarre architecture. I can't really see why it gained so much traction in the embedded market, short of much higher power than ARM devices at the time when embedded SOHO routing solutions exploded.
No, no. I'm not complaining about our transit or peering costs.
Never was.
I'm complaining about a third-party lobbying for control over my upstream and peering connections, when that is a decision between me and my aggregate customer base.
Giving those third-parties that control could easily make my peering and/or transit costs untenable and out of my control.
Today, maybe Netflix wants 20gbit of bandwidth into my customer-base, maybe tomorrow Akamai does (We peer with both).
The decision on the size of my links with them and my upstreams should be mine, not theirs. Only my customers should be able to influence that, and that's all up to how good I am to my customers- though my customers are free to leave if I suck.
And before you say Netflix isn't doing that, you're wrong. They are. Links are available above.
You may also be the perfect example of what I said was actually the problem- monopolized customer base.
You have a local ISP successfully competing against Charter- how? Wireless? You're certainly not putting your own lines in the ground.
The vast majority of AS presences within the Westin sublease space. But you know that, right? I suspect you also know that none of them (that I'm aware of) offer use of their patch-panels at one-time cost.
You've fallen into the same hole as the previous person. You don't get to dictate what costs are reasonable for other people. You also don't get to prioritize where my money goes.
We peer privately, publicly via the SIX, as well as multiple transit providers. Our hardware is limited, and our budget far more so. Capacity increase at an edge begs capacity increase network-wide. Our business model is to take care of our customers in a way that is profitable to us. We have succeeded thus far. Being forced to offer free peering with people we don't want to peer with at the rates they want to peer at could definitely REALLY cause a hiccup in the current formula. Of course ATT's budget isn't limited like ours is, but how is that relevant? how is that your business? How does forcing them to accede to the demands of Netflix not fuck me as well?
It is not double dipping to tell someone if they want prioritized connectivity into your network, they can pay for it.
It's a matter of large eyeball networks maintaining shitty links because they know their customers won't bolt.
I'm not justifying their practice, I'm arguing *vehemently* against thinking this is net neutrality, or that rules under the banner of "net neutrality" to solve *this* problem are anything but devastating for smaller people, who are satisfying their customer bases perfectly adequately.
Incorrect.
We don't own buildings, we don't own meet-me-rooms. ISPs are renters, like anyone else. xconns cost money. We rent connectivity up to the meet-me-room and we pay through the nose for it. Fiber runs between floors are surprisingly not cheap. We pay for power to switches, we require new switches when capacities are reached. The cascade of cost that is incurred, the trickle of network upgrades required for capacity increases is not free. Network engineering is not cheap.
I also take exception with you trying to tell me what our money has paid for, and what it hasn't.
Do you have *any* idea how much bandwidth even small ISPs are passing these days? Nothing we purchased years ago is even relevant post-netflix.
Our traffic grew 100% last year without an appreciable increase in customer-base. And no, we do not make enough money to replace out all of our network gear every few years. Not remotely close. I think you greatly overestimate margins.
Sure, you try to make do where you can, moving to bonding solutions, then intelligent traffic-steering, multi-path, etc, but in the end, it comes down to more and newer hardware with more exotic optics and switching fabrics. Network hardware isn't cheap, and I can't just brush off some juniper I bought 7 years ago for my new 20gbit xconn over to Netflix.
Why exactly did you make that comment?
I'll leave the math behind why that's completely impossible to you.
But for whatever it's worth- I wish we could.
I don't think you personally would settle for 40kbit/sec internet.
We have ~10k residential customers, from dialup to gigabit fiber, and 5 datacenters of colocated customers.
I expect that if I were to tally the max-throughput of every customer connection we have, split it into 10G links to our cheapest transit provider, the aggregate MRC for the lowest commit we could get would be around our net yearly income.
And really, our network doesn't suffer from congestion. We *lose* customers if it does, so we keep up with actual use of the links. I'd argue that's a far smarter design than the one you suggest.
I suspect you think we make a lot more money than we do- or you'd like small ISPs to no longer be in business.
(Though realistically, a large one would suffer this problem as well.)
"This weak net neutrality isn't enough to protect an open, competitive Internet; a stronger form of net neutrality is required. Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge. "
ATT *does* provide sufficient access to their customers, from their perspective- the only perspective that matters between them and Netflix.
What ATT does *not* provide is a link that is large enough for their customers. This is not a matter of net neutrality.
What ATT does *not* provide is a special link to Netflix for free to circumvent ATT's shitty connection to Cogent.
So, to summarize this brilliance, ATT should be *forced* to provide adequate pipe to their customers, where adequate is defined by third-party people with no stake in the company, or even relationship? Wrong answer. I'm sure even you can figure out why that will not work.
ATT's customers should be able to leave, because ATT sucks. Netflix should not be able to force crony regulatory rules down any company's throat demanding specialized relationship, or even any kind of treatment of their customers.
Your willful ignorance hurts to see. I am goddamn glad people who think like you don't actually run the Internet. Or anything important. You'd legislate my local TV station into being forced to broadcast any kind of signal that any kind of device within range of it could pick up.
Yes, what Netflix wants is federally-mandated free-peering arrangements that will scale with usage by mandate.
Don't take my word for it- read it and weep. It's right there, in their own words. Sure, they use all kinds of misleading words like "tolls" and "leverage", but the fact of the matter is, they want to force ISPs to care about Netflix's customers as much as Netflix does. They don't, nor should they have to.
That is what they call "strong net neutrality", they call it this because "weak net neutrality" (their verbiage) - or simple non-interference, "isn't good enough".
The actual problem here, for people with enough brain-cells rubbing together to notice it, is monopolization of the US ISP market. This shit happens because customers can't actually leave their ISP that is maintaing congested links (congested for everyone, mind you- net neutrally.)
Your turn, cowboy.
You've got the gist of it. And yes, it is a beneficial deal (at least for ISPs our size- this is why we did it)
I could however see ATT believing it's in their monetary interest not to provide a competitor with a free superhighway into their network,
and I support their right to make that decision as long as it means they're not discriminating.
I have looked for evidence that ATT is trying to gouge money from Netflix for the Cogent bill. I can't find any. Link?
I have seen plenty of places that make that claim, but when the links are really followed, they invariably end up at [ISP] saying: If you want off a congested link, you can pay for a direct connection.
I deal with congested links to ATT and Comcast every night I'm on call. I reroute through different providers and adjust my announcements to make them take different paths to my customers. It sucks, but It's pretty apparent it isn't deliberate (the congestion isn't consistent, and we're no Netflix), other than a deliberate decision not to fix their congestion problem- probably because their customers don't have real choice)
The real problem here, until I read of actual violations in the spirit of net neutrality, is simple ISP monopoly. It's what needs to be fixed.
Verizon, Comcast, ATT are maintained congested links because they don't *have* to upgrade them. Why should they? where are their customers going to go?
You're just making shit up. ATT has not demanded that Netflix pay them for traffic that has transited in their network, nor has anyone provided any conclusive evidence that Netflix traffic going into ATT via transit is discriminated against.
"(Reuters) - AT&T on Friday dismissed Netflix's recent call for free interconnection as an arrogant and unfair attempt to force others to pay for the content provider to gain access to faster broadband speeds and better services."
FTFA (you read that, right?;):
"Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience. When we do so, we don’t pay for priority access against competitors, just for interconnection"
As a tech-savvy netizen, i expect better from you. Be informed before you speak. This is what I do for a living.
I see our disconnect.
Again, I am a senior network engineer at an ISP who does have Open Connect connectivity.
They do not pay for a rack, they do not pay for a backhaul. They do not pay for anything in fact. All connectivity is our responsibility.
There are 3 tiers of Open Connect, simple free peering, peering + caching hardware, and just caching-hardware filled via transit.
We connect via BGP to the caching hardware, and we connect via BGP to Netflix over the peering link.
I wouldn't call anything in the arrangement high-cost (in fact, it's a benefit to us, we save transit bandwidth, and we're small enough for that to matter)
I'm not going to call you a liar regarding what you say about CEOs, but in my position, I've sat at conference tables with every large ISP operating in the Seattle area. I also setup our Open Connect system with my bare hands, every single aspect of it (Yes, that is all the ISPs responsibility).
I'm not making this up. I also don't consider it a bad deal. But I refuse to call the refusal to play an aspect of Net Neutrality.
The article isn't spinning Hastings words- those *are* his words. He believes every ISP out there should peer with him for free. From a logical perspective, I'd say he's pretty much right, and the deal is more than resonable. I simply refuse to acknowledge he has the right to force me into the arrangement.
I'm the senior network engineer at an ISP. Your assertion of no-cost is utterly incorrect.
Here in the Seattle area, cross-connects typically happen at the Westin building. I assure you it's plenty expensive for cross-connects before you even factor in equipment (multiple 10Gbit optics and line-card ports).
The issue is actually that ATT wants Netflix to go chew cud in response to Netflix saying "You should peer with us for free." http://www.reuters.com/article...
"“Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience. When we do so, we don’t pay for priority access against competitors, just for interconnection,” he wrote, in relation to the ongoing debate over the future of net neutrality and paid agreements between Netflix and Comcast."
You're being caught up as sheep in a war between capitalist organizations. This isn't even an issue of net neutrality.
ATT isn't asking Netflix to pay for traffic transited into their network.
"In his original post, Hastings said internet service providers should give content companies adequate network connections for free, and singled out Comcast for supporting "weak" internet traffic rules."
Regardless of your *opinion* on costs, forcing an ISP to interconnect with someone else is *not* net neutrality. Net neutrality is simply the buzz-word being used by the combatants to rally their supporters.
No. ATT is not double-dipping.
Netflix is pressuring ISPs to facilitate free-peering with them by offering a tier of service that is only available to customers of theirs who have ISPs that peer with Netflix. It's called SuperHD. I setup my company's link with them.
It is "free" for both sides (interconnect costs excluded, of course).
ATT doesn't believe they should provide a wide-open highway into their network to Netflix for free.
Personally, I don't even see this as a case of net neutrality. If net neutrality is forcing ISPs to accept peering arrangements with anyone, then take me off the list of supporters.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree on your assertions of speech, and its protected nature.
I even support his right to make that donation.
I don't support his right to not have that be seen as an attack against a class of people who are now pissed off at him and intend on enacting socially-acceptable non-violent retribution upon his bigoted ass, and I'm not entirely sure where that right exists within statute.
At least they're not funding an initiative to redefine the word CEO as someone who doesn't have the last name Eich, because then there would be actual moral equivalence, and I'd have to defend his sorry ass.
Don't feed the troll- especially not Girl Scout cookies or Oreos... And never after midnight.
If the state that holds police power over me has defined God, and I find it not consistent with my own personal views, and the State takes that definition from the Pope, then Yes, I shall ask him to define it in a way that includes me. Thanks for playing.
Straw Man. Equal protection under the law as a doctrine exists precisely to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
I don't care that he held that opinion.
Well, actually I do, it disappointed me.
However, he wasn't actively moving to suppress it, and that is where I draw the distinction. Am I mistaken? If I am, then yes, I made a mistake voting for him.
Perhaps though, I saw a man who was close to the edge of changing his mind, and I made the right choice after all.
I wasn't aware OKCupid had funded a voter initiative to deny Eich from holding the office of CEO at Mozilla, backed by the full enforcement power of the State.
In that case, I'm afraid I have no choice but to agree with you!
The problem with moral equivalence, is that it isn't.
But certainly you realize that the people attempting to legislate their religious values against other classes of people aren't as enlightened in their grasp of Christology as you?
I'm a staunch atheist, who is very tolerant of religious beliefs, to the point of making an effort not to antagonize people for them, and I have donated to churches in my area (Seattle) who have made it a point to have more enlightened standpoints like yours, especially with regard to *helping* homosexuals without proclaiming their damnation them (at least to their faces).
I've had excellent conversations with the pastors of those congregations, and I love them as humans.
That said, in my 31 years of existence, well over 90% (from my ass, I know- but I feel the hyperbole isn't too thick) of Christians I have known don't fall into that category. They're bigoted, and the only place they want their religion more than on their sleeve is on the book of laws that governs me.
I do salute the way you worship Christ, though. Good for you, really. I wish more of humanity could hold mystical views with such tolerance of dissent.
Because not everyone has the patience of Dr. King, or Gandhi. ;)
If we did, we'd have more holidays than we could count. There's a reason what they did was special.
Mere mortals tend to respond to people who attack them as if they were enemies. Radical thought, I know.
I think we can all count our lucky stars that the intolerant anti-bigot Lefty Communofascialists have not responded in kind with the bigots and attempted to legislate against their franchise, or perhaps lynch them. They seem to be responding at this moment by exercising *their* free speech
Not just any action.
One could argue, very reasonably, that the specific action serves as casus belli.
He didn't vote to re-purpose National Park land, he voted to deny a group of people that ability to do something that did not affect him in any protected way.
It's like me supporting a proposition that bans people with the surname Eich cannot be employeed by a corporation as CEO.
It is personal, no matter how you swing it, it's an artillery volley in a civil rights war.
I would perhaps at least see merit in the argument against gay marriage if it had some kind of scientifically proven detrimental effect on... someone, but it doesn't. The court case transcripts are available. There was no legitimate argument, only spaghetti thrown at the wall in desperate hope that some of it would stick.
Moral relativism is dangerous. His speech may be free, but he has no right for his belligerent attack to go unresponded-to. The man is a bigot. He may not realize it, but he is. Down to the core. He feels he can legislate the natural rights of another person because he disapproves of it, without presenting any evidence whatsoever that it harms anything but the pride he holds in his Book.
I'm not so sure... While he certainly combined his answer to the parent's contentions with an insult, I'd say it's inaccurate to say "rather than", thus I have to see him as being right- It's not a synonym for "insult".
In my experience, most are Broadcom MIPS SOCs.
ARMs are a distant second in the segment. (Again, in my experience.)
MIPS is a bizarre architecture. I can't really see why it gained so much traction in the embedded market, short of much higher power than ARM devices at the time when embedded SOHO routing solutions exploded.
Or take your food.
The wealthy are rarely squeamish about taking what they need/want.
No, no. I'm not complaining about our transit or peering costs.
Never was.
I'm complaining about a third-party lobbying for control over my upstream and peering connections, when that is a decision between me and my aggregate customer base.
Giving those third-parties that control could easily make my peering and/or transit costs untenable and out of my control.
Today, maybe Netflix wants 20gbit of bandwidth into my customer-base, maybe tomorrow Akamai does (We peer with both).
The decision on the size of my links with them and my upstreams should be mine, not theirs. Only my customers should be able to influence that, and that's all up to how good I am to my customers- though my customers are free to leave if I suck.
And before you say Netflix isn't doing that, you're wrong. They are. Links are available above.
You may also be the perfect example of what I said was actually the problem- monopolized customer base.
You have a local ISP successfully competing against Charter- how? Wireless? You're certainly not putting your own lines in the ground.
The vast majority of AS presences within the Westin sublease space. But you know that, right? I suspect you also know that none of them (that I'm aware of) offer use of their patch-panels at one-time cost.
You've fallen into the same hole as the previous person. You don't get to dictate what costs are reasonable for other people. You also don't get to prioritize where my money goes.
We peer privately, publicly via the SIX, as well as multiple transit providers. Our hardware is limited, and our budget far more so. Capacity increase at an edge begs capacity increase network-wide. Our business model is to take care of our customers in a way that is profitable to us. We have succeeded thus far. Being forced to offer free peering with people we don't want to peer with at the rates they want to peer at could definitely REALLY cause a hiccup in the current formula.
Of course ATT's budget isn't limited like ours is, but how is that relevant? how is that your business? How does forcing them to accede to the demands of Netflix not fuck me as well?
It is not double dipping to tell someone if they want prioritized connectivity into your network, they can pay for it.
It's a matter of large eyeball networks maintaining shitty links because they know their customers won't bolt.
I'm not justifying their practice, I'm arguing *vehemently* against thinking this is net neutrality, or that rules under the banner of "net neutrality" to solve *this* problem are anything but devastating for smaller people, who are satisfying their customer bases perfectly adequately.
Incorrect.
We don't own buildings, we don't own meet-me-rooms. ISPs are renters, like anyone else. xconns cost money. We rent connectivity up to the meet-me-room and we pay through the nose for it. Fiber runs between floors are surprisingly not cheap. We pay for power to switches, we require new switches when capacities are reached. The cascade of cost that is incurred, the trickle of network upgrades required for capacity increases is not free. Network engineering is not cheap.
I also take exception with you trying to tell me what our money has paid for, and what it hasn't.
Do you have *any* idea how much bandwidth even small ISPs are passing these days? Nothing we purchased years ago is even relevant post-netflix.
Our traffic grew 100% last year without an appreciable increase in customer-base. And no, we do not make enough money to replace out all of our network gear every few years. Not remotely close. I think you greatly overestimate margins.
Sure, you try to make do where you can, moving to bonding solutions, then intelligent traffic-steering, multi-path, etc, but in the end, it comes down to more and newer hardware with more exotic optics and switching fabrics. Network hardware isn't cheap, and I can't just brush off some juniper I bought 7 years ago for my new 20gbit xconn over to Netflix.
Why exactly did you make that comment?
I'll leave the math behind why that's completely impossible to you.
But for whatever it's worth- I wish we could.
I don't think you personally would settle for 40kbit/sec internet.
We have ~10k residential customers, from dialup to gigabit fiber, and 5 datacenters of colocated customers.
I expect that if I were to tally the max-throughput of every customer connection we have, split it into 10G links to our cheapest transit provider, the aggregate MRC for the lowest commit we could get would be around our net yearly income.
And really, our network doesn't suffer from congestion. We *lose* customers if it does, so we keep up with actual use of the links. I'd argue that's a far smarter design than the one you suggest.
I suspect you think we make a lot more money than we do- or you'd like small ISPs to no longer be in business.
(Though realistically, a large one would suffer this problem as well.)
From Netflix's blog:
"This weak net neutrality isn't enough to protect an open, competitive Internet; a stronger form of net neutrality is required. Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge. "
ATT *does* provide sufficient access to their customers, from their perspective- the only perspective that matters between them and Netflix. What ATT does *not* provide is a link that is large enough for their customers. This is not a matter of net neutrality.
What ATT does *not* provide is a special link to Netflix for free to circumvent ATT's shitty connection to Cogent.
So, to summarize this brilliance, ATT should be *forced* to provide adequate pipe to their customers, where adequate is defined by third-party people with no stake in the company, or even relationship? Wrong answer. I'm sure even you can figure out why that will not work.
ATT's customers should be able to leave, because ATT sucks. Netflix should not be able to force crony regulatory rules down any company's throat demanding specialized relationship, or even any kind of treatment of their customers.
Your willful ignorance hurts to see. I am goddamn glad people who think like you don't actually run the Internet. Or anything important. You'd legislate my local TV station into being forced to broadcast any kind of signal that any kind of device within range of it could pick up.
You are again full of shit. And you're apparently confused about what a straw-man is, and to further top it all off, you simply cannot read.
http://blog.netflix.com/2014/0...
Yes, what Netflix wants is federally-mandated free-peering arrangements that will scale with usage by mandate.
Don't take my word for it- read it and weep. It's right there, in their own words. Sure, they use all kinds of misleading words like "tolls" and "leverage", but the fact of the matter is, they want to force ISPs to care about Netflix's customers as much as Netflix does. They don't, nor should they have to.
That is what they call "strong net neutrality", they call it this because "weak net neutrality" (their verbiage) - or simple non-interference, "isn't good enough".
The actual problem here, for people with enough brain-cells rubbing together to notice it, is monopolization of the US ISP market. This shit happens because customers can't actually leave their ISP that is maintaing congested links (congested for everyone, mind you- net neutrally.)
Your turn, cowboy.
You've got the gist of it. And yes, it is a beneficial deal (at least for ISPs our size- this is why we did it)
I could however see ATT believing it's in their monetary interest not to provide a competitor with a free superhighway into their network,
and I support their right to make that decision as long as it means they're not discriminating.
I have looked for evidence that ATT is trying to gouge money from Netflix for the Cogent bill. I can't find any. Link?
I have seen plenty of places that make that claim, but when the links are really followed, they invariably end up at [ISP] saying: If you want off a congested link, you can pay for a direct connection.
I deal with congested links to ATT and Comcast every night I'm on call. I reroute through different providers and adjust my announcements to make them take different paths to my customers. It sucks, but It's pretty apparent it isn't deliberate (the congestion isn't consistent, and we're no Netflix), other than a deliberate decision not to fix their congestion problem- probably because their customers don't have real choice)
The real problem here, until I read of actual violations in the spirit of net neutrality, is simple ISP monopoly. It's what needs to be fixed. Verizon, Comcast, ATT are maintained congested links because they don't *have* to upgrade them. Why should they? where are their customers going to go?
You're just making shit up. ATT has not demanded that Netflix pay them for traffic that has transited in their network, nor has anyone provided any conclusive evidence that Netflix traffic going into ATT via transit is discriminated against.
;) :
http://www.reuters.com/article...
"(Reuters) - AT&T on Friday dismissed Netflix's recent call for free interconnection as an arrogant and unfair attempt to force others to pay for the content provider to gain access to faster broadband speeds and better services."
FTFA (you read that, right?
"Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience. When we do so, we don’t pay for priority access against competitors, just for interconnection"
As a tech-savvy netizen, i expect better from you. Be informed before you speak. This is what I do for a living.
I see our disconnect.
Again, I am a senior network engineer at an ISP who does have Open Connect connectivity.
They do not pay for a rack, they do not pay for a backhaul. They do not pay for anything in fact. All connectivity is our responsibility.
There are 3 tiers of Open Connect, simple free peering, peering + caching hardware, and just caching-hardware filled via transit.
We connect via BGP to the caching hardware, and we connect via BGP to Netflix over the peering link.
I wouldn't call anything in the arrangement high-cost (in fact, it's a benefit to us, we save transit bandwidth, and we're small enough for that to matter)
I'm not going to call you a liar regarding what you say about CEOs, but in my position, I've sat at conference tables with every large ISP operating in the Seattle area. I also setup our Open Connect system with my bare hands, every single aspect of it (Yes, that is all the ISPs responsibility).
I'm not making this up. I also don't consider it a bad deal. But I refuse to call the refusal to play an aspect of Net Neutrality.
The article isn't spinning Hastings words- those *are* his words. He believes every ISP out there should peer with him for free. From a logical perspective, I'd say he's pretty much right, and the deal is more than resonable. I simply refuse to acknowledge he has the right to force me into the arrangement.
I'm the senior network engineer at an ISP. Your assertion of no-cost is utterly incorrect.
Here in the Seattle area, cross-connects typically happen at the Westin building. I assure you it's plenty expensive for cross-connects before you even factor in equipment (multiple 10Gbit optics and line-card ports).
The issue is actually that ATT wants Netflix to go chew cud in response to Netflix saying "You should peer with us for free."
http://www.reuters.com/article...
"“Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience. When we do so, we don’t pay for priority access against competitors, just for interconnection,” he wrote, in relation to the ongoing debate over the future of net neutrality and paid agreements between Netflix and Comcast."
You're being caught up as sheep in a war between capitalist organizations. This isn't even an issue of net neutrality.
ATT isn't asking Netflix to pay for traffic transited into their network.
"In his original post, Hastings said internet service providers should give content companies adequate network connections for free, and singled out Comcast for supporting "weak" internet traffic rules."
Regardless of your *opinion* on costs, forcing an ISP to interconnect with someone else is *not* net neutrality. Net neutrality is simply the buzz-word being used by the combatants to rally their supporters.
Those companies aren't pressuring ATT for a free-peering cross-connect.
Freedom is a well-informed sheep ignoring the banshee calls of well-armed, yet ignorant ones.
No. ATT is not double-dipping.
Netflix is pressuring ISPs to facilitate free-peering with them by offering a tier of service that is only available to customers of theirs who have ISPs that peer with Netflix. It's called SuperHD. I setup my company's link with them.
It is "free" for both sides (interconnect costs excluded, of course).
ATT doesn't believe they should provide a wide-open highway into their network to Netflix for free.
Personally, I don't even see this as a case of net neutrality. If net neutrality is forcing ISPs to accept peering arrangements with anyone, then take me off the list of supporters.
No, this is more like charging Netflix for their own non-congested vendor entry into the ATT Super-Mart (customer-base).