[175886] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent admits to QoSing down streaming
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Nov 6 13:16:49 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <D14544C8-7522-4CE3-BC3A-369CD2C03895@ianai.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:10:21 -0800
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
The way I read it was that Cogent actually made things look artificially =
better for M-Labs while simultaneously making it much worse for one =
subset of their users and somewhat better for others.
I would suggest that if we get the educational process right, we should =
be able to explain that the point where you=E2=80=99re having to select =
traffic to prioritize is the point where your network is inadequate to =
the task at hand and should be upgraded.
I don=E2=80=99t see any reason we shouldn=E2=80=99t be able to use this =
article as a prime example of a provider doing the wrong thing instead =
of fixing the real problem =E2=80=94 Congestion at exchange points.
Owen
> On Nov 6, 2014, at 8:12 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> =
wrote:
>=20
> =
<http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/11/cogent-now-admits-slowed-netflixs-=
traffic-creating-fast-lane-slow-lane.html>
>=20
> This is interesting. And it will be detrimental to network neutrality =
supporters. Cogent admits that while they were publicly complaining =
about other networks congesting links, they were using QoS to make the =
problem look worse.
>=20
> One of the problems in "tech" is most people do not realize tone is =
important, not just substance. There was - still is! - congestion in =
many places where consumers have one or at most two choice of providers. =
Even in places where there are two providers, both are frequently =
congested. Instead of discussing the fact there is no functioning =
market, no choice for the average end user, and how to fix it, we will =
now spend a ton of time arguing whether anything is wrong at all because =
Cogent did this.
>=20
> Wouldn't you rather be discussing whether 4 Mbps is really broadband? =
(Anyone else have flashbacks to "640K is enough for anyone!"?) Or how =
many people have more than one choice at 25 Mbps? Or whether a company =
with a terminating access monopoly can intentionally congest its edge to =
charge monopoly rents on the content providers their paying customers =
are trying to access? I know I would.
>=20
> Instead, we'll be talking about how things are not really bad, Cogent =
just made it look bad on purpose. The subtlety of "it _IS_ bad, Cogent =
just shifted some of the burden from VoIP to streaming" is not something =
that plays well in a 30 second sound bite, or at congressional hearings.
>=20
> It's enough to make one consider giving up the idea of having a =
functioning, useful Internet.
>=20
> --=20
> TTFN,
> patrick
