[175895] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent admits to QoSing down streaming
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Nov 6 18:58:45 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <545BDAEC.6080604@ispn.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 15:55:44 -0800
To: Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Nov 6, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
>=20
> Owen, should providers be able to over subscribe their networks? If =
so, at what tier level (tier 1, 2, 3, residential ISP)? Is it acceptable =
for a provider to permit frequent congestion if they choose to? Or =
should they be forced to take action that may (potentially) lead to =
increased customer rates or reduced customer bandwidth?
Oversubscribe, of course. Overrun with persistent congestion, no.
1. Yes.
2. Any.
3. No, not really.
4. Yes.
> I do think that Cogent's customers likely expect to receive their full =
subscription rate, without congestion, nearly 100% of the time (at least =
within the Cogent network). This would mean that having congestion is a =
problem and QoS is not a solution to congestion. However, I don't think =
all customers of all IP transit providers have this expectation. For =
example, residential customers may be happy with "up to X Mbps" if the =
costs associated are 1/10th that of a "guaranteed X Mbps" service. This =
is essentially the difference between "Bronze" and "Silver" service =
levels. As long as market choice exists, I see no problem with a =
provider choosing to operate a slow, inconsistent, or unreliable network =
as long as the internet as a whole, being a piece of critical =
communications infrastructure, remains available and reliable. =
Effectively, this would mean that tier 1 and 2 transit providers =
(including Cogent) would need to be consistent and reliable. While =
regional transit providers and ISPs would be given much more =
flexibility. Regardless, I think letting transit providers/ISPs pick =
winners and losers is a losing strategy in the long term.
Cogent is not a residential ISP. They are a business to business =
provider. As such, it should be possible to assume that their customers =
reasonably understand what they are buying and if they do not, the rules =
of caveat emptor should apply.
Cogent=E2=80=99s failure to upgrade their peering (and their generally =
poor attitude towards peering overall) are one issue.
The bigger issue in this discussion is their lack of transparency in =
secretly prioritizing traffic in order to further an agenda. IMHO, such =
conduct is unethical at best.
Owen
>=20
> --Blake
>=20
> Owen DeLong wrote on 11/6/2014 12:10 PM:
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>>> 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
