[171342] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hugo Slabbert)
Sun Apr 27 01:57:40 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 05:56:11 +0000
In-Reply-To: <535C483D.4060800@cox.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct m=
e if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap. With Comcast/Netfl=
ix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that the=
re's obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway...=0A=
=0A=
>A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thou=
ght=0A=
>to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network=
=0A=
>providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry you=
rs=0A=
>and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under=
=0A=
>modern realities.=0A=
=0A=
I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed". Not saying it=
's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet".=0A=
=0A=
Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes =
settlement-free peering viable:=0A=
"The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was send=
ing to the other was roughly equivalent."=0A=
=0A=
...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix need=
s to buck up:=0A=
"Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge am=
ounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with suff=
icient quality."=0A=
=0A=
But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge netw=
ork in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to Comcast us=
ers the traffic that they requested. Is there really anything more nuanced=
here than:=0A=
=0A=
1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network a=
ccording to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with. (Nothing wrong h=
ere; oversubscription is a fact of life).=0A=
2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market.=0A=
3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and =
suck in more data than Comcast was betting on.=0A=
4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the he=
avy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customer=
s' usage.=0A=
=0A=
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traff=
ic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capac=
ity 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?=
=0A=
=0A=
Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards dou=
ble dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized "Open Internet" r=
ules don't help on that front. Now, Comcast is free to leverage their cust=
omers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's line of e=
ncouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting here. Basic=
ally 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 user=
s are getting the short end of the stick without any real recourse while th=
at plays out.=0A=
=0A=
--=0A=
Hugo =0A=
=0A=
________________________________________=0A=
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Larry Sheldon <LarryShel=
don@cox.net>=0A=
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM=0A=
To: nanog@nanog.org=0A=
Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could e=
nshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post=0A=
=0A=
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian=0A=
=0A=
FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality=0A=
=0A=
http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/=
=0A=
=0A=
Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho!=0A=
--=0A=
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics=0A=
of System Administrators:=0A=
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to=0A=
learn from their mistakes.=0A=
(Adapted from Stephen Pinker)=0A=
