Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they couldenshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

[Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert () stargate ca>]

> If it was Netflix connected to say Cogent and Comcast connected to Level3 you 
> would have the same unbalanced ratios between Cogent/Level3 for the same 
> reasons.  Level3 would likely be wanting compensation from Cogent for it...  

...and that would be fine as at that point we're talking about traffic 
exchanged between two transit providers, i.e. Level3 providing transit for 
Comcast and Cogent providing transit for Netflix.  Settlement free peering and 
traffic ratios between transit AS's for these two respective parties is a 
different ball of wax from those some concepts in direct peering between the 
content provider and eyeball network.

Comcast is the destination network for the traffic; they're not providing 
transit services to Netflix.  Comcast needs to accept the Netflix traffic that 
Comcast's customers are requesting *somehow*;  I don't see why they get to 
charge Netflix for a private peering relationship that's beneficial to both 
sides.

--
Hugo


On Mon 2014-Apr-28 08:56:55 -0700, bedard.phil () gmail com <bedard.phil () gmail com> wrote:
> If it was Netflix connected to say Cogent and Comcast connected to Level3 you would have the same unbalanced ratios between 
> Cogent/Level3 for the same reasons.  Level3 would likely be wanting compensation from Cogent for it...  It is such a large 
> amount of bandwidth these days it's not made up by other traffic.
>
> I am not saying any of it is right, but precedents in the past have led to this.
>
> Phil
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Jack Bates" <jbates () paradoxnetworks net>
> Sent: ‎4/‎28/‎2014 11:34 AM
> To: "Phil Bedard" <bedard.phil () gmail com>; "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists () gmail com>; "nanog () nanog org" 
> <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they couldenshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
>
> On 4/28/2014 9:18 AM, Phil Bedard wrote:
> > People seem to forget what Comcast is doing is nothing new. People have
> > been paying for unbalanced peering for as long as peering has been around.
> > It's a little different because Netflix doesn't have an end network
> > customer to bill to recoup those charges, they have customers on someone
> > else's network.
> Yeah. It's a scam. Comcast can't do balanced peering. Their customers
> are not symmetrical.
>
> > It's not like all broadband providers are anti-Netflix, some are even
> > starting to include NF as an app on their STB.  There are also many who do
> > peer with Netflix settlement-free even with very unbalanced ratios.  The
> > key in the future is moving the bandwidth closer to the users, and we will
> > see more edge caching exist either within the broadband provider
> > facilities or at more localized 3rd party datacenters.
> Netflix is happy to assist with caching. The thing is, Comcast doesn't
> care about that. What they care about is that their last mile is getting
> saturated and they have to pay money to upgrade it. Costs are being
> shoved onto netflix and similar to justify that.
>
> This is compared to the small ISP who is just happy to get a peering or
> cache to save money only on their transit fees.
>
>
> Jack

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature