[171345] 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 03:00:44 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 06:58:53 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAObxEFBThzyMCugPBxXC_Lvg8FUxcBO2HbOGMyHBOimj9zFrqg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> ...but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comca=
st...
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 ap=
pearances 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 upgra=
de 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 a=
nd 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 th=
e 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 reas=
onable to expect each side to up their capacity at those points?
> Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives pa=
yment for delivering it so there is no double billing.
The "double-dip" reference was to charging both the content provider and th=
e 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 b=
ill Netflix to accept the traffic, we'd hit double billing.
I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly been PO=
Ps of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the links. Relea=
ses around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering was happening at IX=
s (haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem reasona=
ble for each party to handle their own capacity to the peering points and c=
all it even. No?
--
Hugo
________________________________
From: Rick Astley <jnanog@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 e=
nshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
>How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more traf=
fic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capa=
city to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add ports o=
n 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 w=
ould be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get t=
he data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if Co=
mcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or sho=
uld they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for tho=
se 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 yo=
u one way or the other aside from I disagree with the position Netflix seem=
s to be taking that they simply must be free. Once that traffic is given di=
rectly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so ther=
e 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 <hslabbert@stargate.ca<mailt=
o:hslabbert@stargate.ca>> wrote:
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...
>A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thou=
ght
>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 you=
rs
>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 send=
ing to the other was roughly equivalent."
...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix need=
s to buck up:
"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."
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:
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).
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 he=
avy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customer=
s' usage.
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?
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.
--
Hugo
________________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org<mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org>> on be=
half of Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net<mailto:LarrySheldon@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 e=
nshrine 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)
