Here is a quote I made in the other thread around the same time you were
sending this:
"I also think the practice of paying an intermediary ISP a per Mbps rate in
order to get to a last mile ISP over a settlement free agreement is also a
bit disingenuous in cases where the amount of traffic is suf
>> #4 On QoS (ie fast lane?):
>> In some of the articles I skimmed there was a lot of talk about fast lane
>> traffic but what this sounds like today would be known as QoS and
>> classification marking that would really only become a factor under
>> instances of congestion. The tech bloggers and jo
>Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're
>deliberately
billing two customers for the same byte
I think this statement is a little short sighted if not a bit naive. What
both parties are sold is a pipe that carries data. A subscriber has one,
Netflix has one. They are
Apologies that I dropped offlist as I was out for the day. I think the bulk of
my thoughts on this have already been covered by others since, including e.g.
Matt's poor grandmother and her phone dilemma in the "What Net Neutrality
should and should not cover" thread.
Basically I think we're on
>Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue
with their crappy last mile
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
access to the Internet paid for by residential s
And Carterphone should apply to cellular networks, but I am not holding my
breath.
Owen
On Apr 27, 2014, at 6:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
> If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
> should lose common carrier protections.
>
> -Dan
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
-Dan
On 04/27/2014 05:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Beyond that, there’s a more subtle argument also going on about
whether $EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to
$CONTENT_A and less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method
for encouraging subscribers to select $CONTENT_A ov
On 27 Apr 2014, at 5:19 am, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
>>> Historic event - 500K prefixes on the Internet.
>
>> And now we wait for everything to fall over at 512k ;)
>
> Based on a quick plot graph on the CIDR report, it looks like we are adding
> 6,000 prefixes a month, or thereabouts. So platfor
I agree with all this, even the parts that disagree with me.
-b
On April 27, 2014 at 20:30 jo...@iecc.com (John Levine) wrote:
> >That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like
> >Comcast for access to their cable subscribers.
>
> Well, no. According to Time-Warner's
Well, that's a metaphorical use of "fast lane" which is fine but I
think the PR spin by CNBC was to actually give listeners the
impression that they'd get faster service (e.g., on streaming video)
now that this nasty FCC rule was out of the way.
On April 27, 2014 at 14:07 bedard.p...@gmail.com (P
On Apr 26, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Rick Astley wrote:
>> How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more
> traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
> capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add
> ports on my side; you
- Original Message -
> From: "Hugo Slabbert"
> I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly
> been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the
> links. Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering
> was happening at IXs (haven't ch
- Original Message -
> From: "Hugo Slabbert"
> But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge
> network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to
> Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really
> anything more nuanced here than:
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> In my neighborhood, Comcast has a monopoly on coax cable tv and HFC
> internet services. There are no regulations that support that
> monopoly. Another company could, theoretically, apply, receive
> permits, and build out a second cable system
- Original Message -
> From: "Chris Boyd"
> I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --
>
> Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited
There is a SIP error that amounts to this; 480, I think.
Though, of course, when I had a carrier who wouldn't complete
At some point some the MSOs and telcos tried selling CDN to the streaming video
people and they didn't want to partake. It was cheaper for them to keep
streaming it off 3rd party CDNs. There are also some weird (dumb)
legal/contractual issues around Netflix (or some other video provider)
nego
>That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like
>Comcast for access to their cable subscribers.
Well, no. According to Time-Warner's 2013 annual report, cable
companies paid T-W $4.89 billion for access to HBO and Cinemax. No
video provider pays for access to cable. The cruddy
The comments on the article are FAR more useful than the article itself.
Owen
On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
>
> FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/
>
> Forwar
On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 4/26/2014 3:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon
>> wrote:
>
>>> Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
>>
>> This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN protect
>> monopolies, but that’s
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote:
That amount of data is massive scale. I don't see it as double dipping
because each party is buying the pipe they are using. I am buying a 15Mbps
pipe to my home but just because we are communicating over the Internet
doesn't mean the money I am paying cov
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Rick Astley wrote:
[...]
> It would be sort of the same concept of my grandmother
> calling my cell phone yet we both need to pay for our individual phone
> lines to at least reach the carrier tasked with connecting our call. Even
> if my grandmother calls a busi
On April 27, 2014 at 10:04 n...@pelagiris.org (Nick B) wrote:
> The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double
> dipping.
I'd characterize it as an attempt to charge content providers for
access to last mile customers, where those are two different
companies.
Which isn't
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can
> charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?
>
> In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a
> tiff, the consumer decides which
* William Herrin
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astley wrote:
>> #3 On paid peering:
>> I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should
>> be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious
>> problems once you outlaw paid peering and t
Everyone interested in how this plays out today, can read Bill Norton's
Internet Peering book. While some say situations "didn't happen this way
or it happened that way" doesn't really matter. What is clear and matters
is the tactics/leverage backbones and networks use against each other in
tradin
The "Fast Lane" perhaps starts as not counting traffic against metered
byte caps, similar to what ATT did on their mobile network. If the
content/service provider is willing to pay the provider, then the users
may not pay overage fees or get nasty letters anymore when they exceed
data caps. The s
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astley wrote:
> #3 On paid peering:
> I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should
> be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious
> problems once you outlaw paid peering and then look at the potentia
What are any of you talking about? Have you even bothered to read for
example the wikipedia article on "monopoly" or are you so solipsistic
that you just make up the entire universe in your head? Do you also
pontificate on quantum physics and neurosurgery when the urge strikes
you???
Sorry but th
I wish you would expand on that to help me understand where you are coming
from but what I pay my ISP for is simply a pipe, I don't know how it would
make sense logically to assume that every entity I communicate with on the
Internet must be able to connect for free because I am covering the tab as
I can has test fore able two post too this list ??
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Bryan Socha wrote:
> Whats the big deal If your just arin, dont panic. Akamai and
> digitalocean has been the only people aquire fair priced v4 putside
> arin.So arin is ending. It doesnt
If it were through a switch at the exchange it would be on each of them to
individually upgrade their capacity to it but at the capacities they are at
it they are beyond what would make sense financially to go over an exchange
switch so they would connect directly instead. It's likely more along th
The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double
dipping.
Nick
On Apr 27, 2014 2:05 AM, "Rick Astley" wrote:
> Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know the
> specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile tinkering
> of traffic
On 4/26/14, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
>
> FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/
Why isn't it as simple as I'm paying my ISP to deliver the bits to me
and Netflix is paying their [cdn?] provi
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 03:21:50AM -0400, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:54 AM, "Bryan Socha" wrote:
> > Whats the big deal If your just arin, dont panic. Akamai and
> > digitalocean has been the only people aquire fair priced v4 putside
> > arin.So arin is endin
Wow, I wish I could incoherent this typely!
Andrew
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:54 AM, "Bryan Socha" wrote:
>
>
> Whats the big deal If your just arin, dont panic. Akamai and
> digitalocean has been the only people aquire fair priced v4 putside
> arin.So arin is
> ...but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast...
Which, from the outside, does appear to have been the case.
> ...then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to
> Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.
Which I don
38 matches
Mail list logo
