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 (#1). What this means to me is ISP's can't block access to a
specific website like alibaba and demand ransom from subscribers to access
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?
...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
Wow, I wish I could incoherent this typely!
Andrew
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:54 AM, Bryan Socha br...@digitalocean.com wrote:
Whats the big deal If your just arin, dont panic. Akamai and
digitalocean has been the only people aquire fair priced v4 putside
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 03:21:50AM -0400, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:54 AM, Bryan Socha br...@digitalocean.com 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
On 4/26/14, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net 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
The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double
dipping.
Nick
On Apr 27, 2014 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com 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
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
I can has test fore able two post too this list ??
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Bryan Socha br...@digitalocean.com 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
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
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
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com 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 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
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
trading
* William Herrin
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
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
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com 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
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
On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 4/26/2014 3:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
wrote:
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN
The comments on the article are FAR more useful than the article itself.
Owen
On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
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
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)
- Original Message -
From: Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com
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
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
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
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca
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
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca
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
On Apr 26, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com 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
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
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 2013
On 27 Apr 2014, at 5:19 am, Deepak Jain dee...@ai.net 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
#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 journalists
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
39 matches
Mail list logo
