Net Neutrality in Danger?

[Nice Squirrel]

Their networks can handle Netflix. The problem was that companies like Comcast were purposefully throttling Netflix for business purposes, not network traffic purposes.

Yep. Netflix and YouTube challenge their basic business (cable TV).

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...mer-ire-by-putting-netflix-addicts-on-a-meter

Funny how my non-cable network dosen't have a data cap.

 

[ksen]

A lot of words - still no answer.

When it costs $X to run a network that can't handle Netflix traffic and $X+Y to run a network that can, who should pay the $Y?

Be specific and stop dodging.

That doesn't address my point at all.

It did address your point - your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Anyone who understands how the internet works can see this. Even Ted Stevens said so:

And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.

Good thing I never compared the Internet to a 'big truck', then.

I'd hate to have to feel bad about myself.

Their networks can handle Netflix. The problem was that companies like Comcast were purposefully throttling Netflix for business purposes, not network traffic purposes.

Except it was several of the ISPs at the same time were having issues. Netflix moved its traffic to Cogent and Cogent didn't have the prearranged capacity to handle it and didn't want to pay for the extra load.

And independent studies, which you've been linked to, have shown the "problem" was business related not network capacity related.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A lot of words - still no answer.

When it costs $X to run a network that can't handle Netflix traffic and $X+Y to run a network that can, who should pay the $Y?

Be specific and stop dodging.

That doesn't address my point at all.

It did address your point - your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Anyone who understands how the internet works can see this. Even Ted Stevens said so:

And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.

Good thing I never compared the Internet to a 'big truck', then.

I'd hate to have to feel bad about myself.

Their networks can handle Netflix. The problem was that companies like Comcast were purposefully throttling Netflix for business purposes, not network traffic purposes.

Except it was several of the ISPs at the same time were having issues. Netflix moved its traffic to Cogent and Cogent didn't have the prearranged capacity to handle it and didn't want to pay for the extra load.

And independent studies, which you've been linked to, have shown the "problem" was business related not network capacity related.

Can you provide which link and that it wasn't the interconnection points causing issues?

 

[Deepak]

A lot of words - still no answer.

When it costs $X to run a network that can't handle Netflix traffic and $X+Y to run a network that can, who should pay the $Y?

Be specific and stop dodging.

The answer is literally in the second sentence. And the premise of your question is flawed. I explained both - and at this point you're either being willfully obtuse or are not capable of understanding regardless of how much this is explained to you.

 

[JonA]

A lot of words - still no answer.

When it costs $X to run a network that can't handle Netflix traffic and $X+Y to run a network that can, who should pay the $Y?

Be specific and stop dodging.

The answer is literally in the second sentence. And the premise of your question is flawed. I explained both - and at this point you're either being willfully obtuse or are not capable of understanding regardless of how much this is explained to you.

Unfortunately "the ISP should just figure it out" isn't an answer to the question I asked. It's just flippant dismissal of the problem.

Too bad.

 

[ksen]

A lot of words - still no answer.

When it costs $X to run a network that can't handle Netflix traffic and $X+Y to run a network that can, who should pay the $Y?

Be specific and stop dodging.

That doesn't address my point at all.

It did address your point - your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Anyone who understands how the internet works can see this. Even Ted Stevens said so:

And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.

Good thing I never compared the Internet to a 'big truck', then.

I'd hate to have to feel bad about myself.

Their networks can handle Netflix. The problem was that companies like Comcast were purposefully throttling Netflix for business purposes, not network traffic purposes.

Except it was several of the ISPs at the same time were having issues. Netflix moved its traffic to Cogent and Cogent didn't have the prearranged capacity to handle it and didn't want to pay for the extra load.

And independent studies, which you've been linked to, have shown the "problem" was business related not network capacity related.

Can you provide which link and that it wasn't the interconnection points causing issues?

I already have to you in the thread where we talked about this when the FCC was considering Net Neutrality. If you didn't pay attention to it then why should I think you'd pay attention to it now?

 

[JonA]

A lot of words - still no answer.

When it costs $X to run a network that can't handle Netflix traffic and $X+Y to run a network that can, who should pay the $Y?

Be specific and stop dodging.

That doesn't address my point at all.

It did address your point - your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Anyone who understands how the internet works can see this. Even Ted Stevens said so:

And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.

Good thing I never compared the Internet to a 'big truck', then.

I'd hate to have to feel bad about myself.

Their networks can handle Netflix. The problem was that companies like Comcast were purposefully throttling Netflix for business purposes, not network traffic purposes.

Except it was several of the ISPs at the same time were having issues. Netflix moved its traffic to Cogent and Cogent didn't have the prearranged capacity to handle it and didn't want to pay for the extra load.

And independent studies, which you've been linked to, have shown the "problem" was business related not network capacity related.

Can you provide which link and that it wasn't the interconnection points causing issues?

I already have to you in the thread where we talked about this when the FCC was considering Net Neutrality. If you didn't pay attention to it then why should I think you'd pay attention to it now?

I haven't seen it.

Could you post the link for my sake?

 

[coloradoatheist]

A lot of words - still no answer.

When it costs $X to run a network that can't handle Netflix traffic and $X+Y to run a network that can, who should pay the $Y?

Be specific and stop dodging.

That doesn't address my point at all.

It did address your point - your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Anyone who understands how the internet works can see this. Even Ted Stevens said so:

And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.

Good thing I never compared the Internet to a 'big truck', then.

I'd hate to have to feel bad about myself.

Their networks can handle Netflix. The problem was that companies like Comcast were purposefully throttling Netflix for business purposes, not network traffic purposes.

Except it was several of the ISPs at the same time were having issues. Netflix moved its traffic to Cogent and Cogent didn't have the prearranged capacity to handle it and didn't want to pay for the extra load.

And independent studies, which you've been linked to, have shown the "problem" was business related not network capacity related.

Can you provide which link and that it wasn't the interconnection points causing issues?

I already have to you in the thread where we talked about this when the FCC was considering Net Neutrality. If you didn't pay attention to it then why should I think you'd pay attention to it now?

I haven't seen it.

Could you post the link for my sake?

Here it is

https://consumerist.com/2014/10/30/study-finds-internet-congestion-really-is-about-business-not-technology/

The argument there was that the three major ISPs did not want to increase their bandwidth capacity at the exchange for access to Cogent and Level 3. The argument is that it wasn't a theoritical limit, they could add bandwidth, but they wanted to enforce peering arrangements that have been around since the beginning.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A lot of words - still no answer.

When it costs $X to run a network that can't handle Netflix traffic and $X+Y to run a network that can, who should pay the $Y?

Be specific and stop dodging.

That doesn't address my point at all.

It did address your point - your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. Anyone who understands how the internet works can see this. Even Ted Stevens said so:

And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.

Good thing I never compared the Internet to a 'big truck', then.

I'd hate to have to feel bad about myself.

Their networks can handle Netflix. The problem was that companies like Comcast were purposefully throttling Netflix for business purposes, not network traffic purposes.

Except it was several of the ISPs at the same time were having issues. Netflix moved its traffic to Cogent and Cogent didn't have the prearranged capacity to handle it and didn't want to pay for the extra load.

And independent studies, which you've been linked to, have shown the "problem" was business related not network capacity related.

So if Cogents starts overloading the pipe between Comcast and Cogent and the business decision is not to upgrade that pipe unless Cogent pays more, is that capacity or business decision or both?

 

[ksen]

Can you provide which link and that it wasn't the interconnection points causing issues?

I already have to you in the thread where we talked about this when the FCC was considering Net Neutrality. If you didn't pay attention to it then why should I think you'd pay attention to it now?

I haven't seen it.

Could you post the link for my sake?

Sure thing.

Here's the original thread:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back

Link to article showing that the network congestion at the time in question was due to a business dispute not a problem with network infratructure:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?p=129394#post129394

Verizon arguing to the FCC that broadband providers ought to have "editorial discretion" over content and how it's accessed:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129510&viewfull=1#post129510

Cogent admits Netflix bottlenecking was done on purpose:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129517&viewfull=1#post129517

Data caps are not really imposed because of congestion issues:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129868&viewfull=1#post129868

Internet congestion is more often caused by business disputes:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129877&viewfull=1#post129877

Data caps are not really imposed because of congestion issues Part II:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129880&viewfull=1#post129880

ISPs tell government that congestion is not an issue:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129893&viewfull=1#post129893

Showing coloradoatheist ignored these stories when they were originally posted:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129905&viewfull=1#post129905

- - - Updated - - -

So if Cogents starts overloading the pipe between Comcast and Cogent and the business decision is not to upgrade that pipe unless Cogent pays more, is that capacity or business decision or both?

"overloading"

lol

 

[coloradoatheist]

Can you provide which link and that it wasn't the interconnection points causing issues?

I already have to you in the thread where we talked about this when the FCC was considering Net Neutrality. If you didn't pay attention to it then why should I think you'd pay attention to it now?

I haven't seen it.

Could you post the link for my sake?

Sure thing.

Here's the original thread:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back

Link to article showing that the network congestion at the time in question was due to a business dispute not a problem with network infratructure:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?p=129394#post129394

Verizon arguing to the FCC that broadband providers ought to have "editorial discretion" over content and how it's accessed:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129510&viewfull=1#post129510

Cogent admits Netflix bottlenecking was done on purpose:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129517&viewfull=1#post129517

Data caps are not really imposed because of congestion issues:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129868&viewfull=1#post129868

Internet congestion is more often caused by business disputes:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129877&viewfull=1#post129877

Data caps are not really imposed because of congestion issues Part II:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129880&viewfull=1#post129880

ISPs tell government that congestion is not an issue:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129893&viewfull=1#post129893

Showing coloradoatheist ignored these stories when they were originally posted:
http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?4160-Net-Neutrailty-is-back&p=129905&viewfull=1#post129905

- - - Updated - - -

So if Cogents starts overloading the pipe between Comcast and Cogent and the business decision is not to upgrade that pipe unless Cogent pays more, is that capacity or business decision or both?

"overloading"

lol

I did go back and look at the links. We argued the same thing as before. The congestion between Cogent and Comcast/AT&T/Verizon were caused by business disputes over who pays for the increased bandwidth. Those three companies said Cogent. Cogent said the other three companies. The guy who went around Cogent/Comcast with a VPN was avoiding the congestion by getting the traffic to go a different way. And the other article was data caps, whether it was used to prevent capacity or used as a pricing model.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You laughed at the word overload, but the capacity that was in place between Cogent and the other providers was not enough when Netflix traffic went over it. Cogent said they had assumed that the providers would increase the bandwidth since they had done it in the past, but the other ISPs said no this time unless Cogent or Netflix started paying extra for it.

 

[Deepak]

You laughed at the word overload, but the capacity that was in place between Cogent and the other providers was not enough when Netflix traffic went over it. Cogent said they had assumed that the providers would increase the bandwidth since they had done it in the past, but the other ISPs said no this time unless Cogent or Netflix started paying extra for it.

The bricks thrown through your window demonstrate that your business was underprotected until you payed the Mafia.

The 'overload' is entirely based on the residential ISPs customer demand, and is load that their customers have payed for. The most charitable reading of 'overload' is that they can't support what they're charging customers for.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You laughed at the word overload, but the capacity that was in place between Cogent and the other providers was not enough when Netflix traffic went over it. Cogent said they had assumed that the providers would increase the bandwidth since they had done it in the past, but the other ISPs said no this time unless Cogent or Netflix started paying extra for it.

The bricks thrown through your window demonstrate that your business was underprotected until you payed the Mafia.

The 'overload' is entirely based on the residential ISPs customer demand, and is load that their customers have payed for. The most charitable reading of 'overload' is that they can't support what they're charging customers for.

Not quite. Netflix was using the CDN network that was on the Comcast network so Comcast was getting paid for the bandwidth used by those CDN and Netflix. Netflix decided to move that traffic from there over to Cogent and bypass that. Cogent didn't have the bandwidth with Comcast and didn't want to pay for it. So it's interesting so you are saying that even though Cogent was the provider for Netflix and they weren't willing to pay for upgrading their circuit with Comcast it's Comcast's fault? Comcast was fine when the Netflix bandwidth was on the CDN platform.

 

[Deepak]

The bricks thrown through your window demonstrate that your business was underprotected until you payed the Mafia.

The 'overload' is entirely based on the residential ISPs customer demand, and is load that their customers have payed for. The most charitable reading of 'overload' is that they can't support what they're charging customers for.

Not quite. Netflix was using the CDN network that was on the Comcast network so Comcast was getting paid for the bandwidth used by those CDN and Netflix. Netflix decided to move that traffic from there over to Cogent and bypass that. Cogent didn't have the bandwidth with Comcast and didn't want to pay for it. So it's interesting so you are saying that even though Cogent was the provider for Netflix and they weren't willing to pay for upgrading their circuit with Comcast it's Comcast's fault? Comcast was fine when the Netflix bandwidth was on the CDN platform.

Funny how Cablevision didn't run into any such issues.

A few months before Netflix launched Open Connect, it also purchased transit from Cogent, which had a settlement-free peering arrangement with Comcast. Netflix’s experience with Cogent resembled its experience with Level 3. Shortly after Cogent began delivering Netflix traffic requested by Comcast subscribers, Cogent’s routes into Comcast’s network started to congest. According to Cogent’s CEO, “[f]or most of Cogent’s history with Comcast…[as] Comcast’s subscribers demanded more content from Cogent’s customers, Comcast would add capacity to the interconnection points with Cogent to handle that increased traffic.” After Cogent began carrying Netflix traffic, however, “Comcast refused to continue to augment capacity at our interconnection points as it had done for years prior.”

And

In a 2011 filing with the Commission, Voxel, a hosting company relying on Tata for interconnection with Comcast’s network, noted that “[w]here broadband ISPS typically ensure that links connecting their customers to outside networks are relatively free from congestion, Comcast appears to be taking the opposite approach: maintaining highly-congested links between its network and external ISP.” The letter concludes that Comcast, through its “interconnection relations,” had “deployed an ecosystem in which hosting companies such as Voxel are effectively forced to pay Comcast to serve its broadband subscribers.” In that ecosystem, “it is simply not possible for competing external providers to deliver gaming, or streaming video services to Comcast’s broadband subscribers” without directly or indirectly paying Comcast.

http://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/

 

[Deepak]

One more:

Verizon has confirmed that everything between that router in their network and their subscribers is uncongested – in fact has plenty of capacity sitting there waiting to be used. Above, I confirmed exactly the same thing for the Level 3 network. So in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers. Simple. Something we’ve been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion. Why is that? Maybe they can’t afford a new port card because they’ve run out – even though these cards are very cheap, just a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more. If that’s the case, we’ll buy one for them. Maybe they can’t afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that’s the case, we’ll provide it. Heck, we’ll even install it.

But, here’s the other interesting thing also shown in the Verizon diagram. This congestion only takes place between Verizon and network providers chosen by Netflix. The providers that Netflix does not use do not experience the same problem. Why is that? Could it be that Verizon does not want its customers to actually use the higher-speed services it sells to them? Could it be that Verizon wants to extract a pound of flesh from its competitors, using the monopoly it has over the only connection to its end-users to raise its competitors’ costs?

To summarize: All of the networks have ample capacity and congestion only occurs in a small number of locations, locations where networks interconnect with some last mile ISPs like Verizon. The cost of removing that congestion is absolutely trivial. It takes two parties to remove congestion at an interconnect point. I can confirm that Level 3 is not the party refusing to add that capacity. In fact, Level 3 has asked Verizon for a long time to add interconnection capacity and to deliver the traffic its customers are requesting from our customers, but Verizon refuses.

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

And once again, this is content that the residential ISP customers are requesting, not random data in transit across trunks.

 

[LordKiran]

One more:

Verizon has confirmed that everything between that router in their network and their subscribers is uncongested – in fact has plenty of capacity sitting there waiting to be used. Above, I confirmed exactly the same thing for the Level 3 network. So in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers. Simple. Something we’ve been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion. Why is that? Maybe they can’t afford a new port card because they’ve run out – even though these cards are very cheap, just a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more. If that’s the case, we’ll buy one for them. Maybe they can’t afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that’s the case, we’ll provide it. Heck, we’ll even install it.

But, here’s the other interesting thing also shown in the Verizon diagram. This congestion only takes place between Verizon and network providers chosen by Netflix. The providers that Netflix does not use do not experience the same problem. Why is that? Could it be that Verizon does not want its customers to actually use the higher-speed services it sells to them? Could it be that Verizon wants to extract a pound of flesh from its competitors, using the monopoly it has over the only connection to its end-users to raise its competitors’ costs?

To summarize: All of the networks have ample capacity and congestion only occurs in a small number of locations, locations where networks interconnect with some last mile ISPs like Verizon. The cost of removing that congestion is absolutely trivial. It takes two parties to remove congestion at an interconnect point. I can confirm that Level 3 is not the party refusing to add that capacity. In fact, Level 3 has asked Verizon for a long time to add interconnection capacity and to deliver the traffic its customers are requesting from our customers, but Verizon refuses.

http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

And once again, this is content that the residential ISP customers are requesting, not random data in transit across trunks.

I'll be honest, I am well past the point of being able to follow along. Explain it to me like I'm dumb please.

 

[Deepak]

I'll be honest, I am well past the point of being able to follow along. Explain it to me like I'm dumb please.

Most residential ISPs are MSOs who have traditionally made money from selling cable programming. Netflix has a content delivery service that allows on-demand viewing of TV shows and movies over the internet, which is causing fewer people to buy services from MSOs other than internet access. Some MSOs use their market leverage to impede traffic from content providers' ISPs (tier-1/backbone networks) in order to make the content providers pay for traffic that the MSO customers are requesting and paying for.