> ...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't believe was a problem? Again, outside looking in, but the appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast was refusing to upgrade capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was doing the same. So: > I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade > or add ports on your side. > The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to > get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it > should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and > the price doesn't basically amount to extortion. Are we talking here about transport between Netflix's POPs and Comcast's? I definitely don't expect Comcast to foot the bill for transport between the two, and if Netflix was asking for that I'm with you that would be out of line. If there are existing exchange points, though, would it not be reasonable to expect each side to up their capacity at those points? > Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives > payment for delivering it so there is no double billing. The "double-dip" reference was to charging both the content provider and the ISP's own customer to deliver the same bits. If the traffic from Netflix was via Netflix's transit provider and Comcast then again was looking to bill Netflix to accept the traffic, we'd hit double billing. 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 checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem reasonable for each party to handle their own capacity to the peering points and call it even. No? -- Hugo ________________________________ From: Rick Astley <jna...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:23 PM To: Hugo Slabbert Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post >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 upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something? Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast 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. The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing. This diagram best describes the relationship (ignoring pricing): http://www.digitalsociety.org/files/gou/free-and-paid-peering.png "Content provider" would be Netflix and Comcast would be Broadband ISP 1. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabb...@stargate.ca<mailto:hslabb...@stargate.ca>> wrote: Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap. With Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway... >A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thought >to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network >providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry yours >and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under >modern realities. I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed". Not saying it's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet". Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes settlement-free peering viable: "The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was sending to the other was roughly equivalent." ...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix needs to buck up: "Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with sufficient quality." 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: 1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life). 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market. 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on. 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customers' usage. 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 upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing something? Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized "Open Internet" rules don't help on that front. Now, Comcast is free to leverage their customers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting here. Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point. Considering the lack of broadband options for large parts of the US, though, it seems that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real recourse while that plays out. -- Hugo ________________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org>> on behalf of Larry Sheldon <larryshel...@cox.net<mailto:larryshel...@cox.net>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/ Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
