|
Cogent offered to upgrade their settlement-free peering connections, but the other ISPs tried to get access fees, which Cogent didn't and shouldn't pay. I did explain, in detail, why access fees are a problem, and why the traffic ratio argument is erroneous. Customers are paying the ISPs to maintain an acceptable level of service to the whole Internet. It'd be different if Netflix was paying Comcast for transit, just like they were/are with Cogent, but as you can see, Comcast doesn't appear anywhere in the list of peers, which suggests that Comcast is not providing transit to Netflix. Edit: I give up. We've both stated our arguments in multiple ways and are going around in circles. I'm interested in what others have to say on this topic, but I'll post no more in this thread. SamDabbers fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Mar 27, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
Cogent should pay. That's standard practice. Again, cogent shouldn't go around selling Transit they ain't equipped for in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
The bottom line is, Netflix agreed to peer directly with Comcast probably because it was cheaper than Cogent. And Comcast is trying to not put more resources into helping others make money without getting a piece of the pie. Ultimately they aren't doing this for the consumers, they are doing this for their shareholders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:So again, what, exactly, is the problem? Comcast has been purposely delaying upgrades to these interconnects to force Netflix's hand. For someone with as many posts in this thread as you do you should know this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Comcast has been purposely delaying upgrades to these interconnects to force Netflix's hand. For someone with as many posts in this thread as you do you should know this. There's a reason that he's one of the most ignore-listed users on the forums. "Install Windows" is fishmech, a man whose posting is so bad his posts were once set to automatically redirect to a thread in the gas chamber.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Comcast has been purposely delaying upgrades to these interconnects to force Netflix's hand. Prove it for once. Noone ever has. Ryokurin posted:The bottom line is, Netflix agreed to peer directly with Comcast probably because it was cheaper than Cogent. Definitely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
SamDabbers posted:I did explain, in detail, why access fees are a problem, and why the traffic ratio argument is erroneous. Customers are paying the ISPs to maintain an acceptable level of service to the whole Internet. It'd be different if Netflix was paying Comcast for transit, just like they were/are with Cogent, but as you can see, Comcast doesn't appear anywhere in the list of peers, which suggests that Comcast is not providing transit to Netflix. Ignoring the question of if it is right or not, Cogent always had the option of terminating peering AND (any) transit connections with Comcast if they felt they were not getting value out of the contract they had signed to settlement free interconnect the networks. The one thing most people forget about peering agreements is that they are formal contracts that have formal terms. If those terms are traffic ratios, a nanog vote means nothing about how the businesses in question are going to treat that traffic at that peering point. The other point that I will make is around hot-potato / cold-potato routing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-potato_and_cold-potato_routing). Cogent and Level 3 can bring on the traffic from Netflix to their network at literally the same router they drop the traffic off onto Comcast, leaving Comcast to carry the traffic for the longest bit miles and thus actually take the brunt of the expense for transporting that data. This is why settlement free peering contracts do not work for large asymmetric flows, and why the SENDER of the data pays, not the receiver.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Prove it for once. Noone ever has. You're being obtuse; the fact that they refused to upgrade their interconnects, even AFTER Cogent offer to fund the capital costs is the entire reason we're even here today discussing this. I'm not going to prove something that is all over the news. You can choose to believe Cogent simply didn't have the capacity on their network and this is all a smokescreen but you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:There's a reason that he's one of the most ignore-listed users on the forums. "Install Windows" is fishmech, a man whose posting is so bad his posts were once set to automatically redirect to a thread in the gas chamber. You know at the end of The Usual Suspects when the guy figures everything out and the camera lingers on him with that shocked look on his face as realization hits him? That was me just now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Hey guess what tag Time Warner just added to its "$14.99 everyday forever and ever with no restrictions" plan? http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/internet/internet-service-plans.html quote:$ 14 99 per month for 12 months Nothing lasts forever. This merger is gonna suck.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Hey guess what tag Time Warner just added to its "$14.99 everyday forever and ever with no restrictions" plan? That is still sooo much better than Cox in my area:  Cheapest Cox is waaay more than $15 and after only 6 months they increase the price $13.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Crotch Fruit posted:That is still sooo much better than Cox in my area: Comcast rates look worse since they require you to have TV or phone before you can have broadband: http://www.comcast.com/internet-service.html quote:This price is for customers who currently subscribe to XFINITY Digital TV or XFINITY VoiceŽ service. Verizon is the same with not offering standalone internet in my area. Time to rig up a Cantenna and troll for public wi-fi.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Comcast rates look worse since they require you to have TV or phone before you can have broadband: You can get standalone internet with comcast, but it does cost more. Its usually cheaper to get starter digital and not hook it up.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:You can get standalone internet with comcast, but it does cost more. Its usually cheaper to get starter digital and not hook it up. We need some sort of regulation that make companies put the non-promo price in big letters right next to the limited promo price. I can't figure out the pricing of various comcast bundles without breaking out excel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Hey, last week or so my internet has slowed to a crawl, with somewhere around a MB of download speed. Only person who I've gotten answers from says it's some hacktivist mad over this merger thing. Any credence to this? I live in Chicago and this poo poo just started last week. edit: m and g are different letters KillerQueen fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Not as far as I'm aware, I too live in Chicago, use comcast as my ISP, and have zero issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186243/obama-just-did-the-right-thing-for-the-internet-and-made-life-hell I'm all for treating the internet like a utility. But I will be surprised if this happens, primarily because I believe congress is made up of gray haired old men, most of whom probably don't know the difference between a web browser and a spreadsheet, and they will probably declare that the
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Crotch Fruit posted:http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/10/7186243/obama-just-did-the-right-thing-for-the-internet-and-made-life-hell Note that "treating it like a utility" doesn't really mean anything in day to day business.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Crotch Fruit posted:I'm all for treating the internet like a utility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
adorai posted:I am curious what you think the advantage to that is. I know that in my house, I have three options for high speed internet today, and expect at least one more in the next 3 years. For reference, the three are cable, DSL, and 3g/4g (technically I have a choice in carriers there as well). There is plenty of fiber going into the ground all over the place, so I expect some kind of fiber to the premises, or at least fiber to the street scenario soon. Given all of this, why is treating it like a utility, which has little to no competition, useful to me? If you regulate in such a way, what incentive do the fiber carriers have to build to me, when they may not actually be able to compete any longer, due to tariffed rates for their services. Even if you do regulate it that way, how does that prevent carrier hijinx? One of the things I have heard opposition to is "sponsored wireless data". If I access service X, the data used for that won't count against me. I can understand how that benefits the big guys, but how is it any different than a toll free number? In many states, treating it like a utility opens the possibility of forcing them to lease their infrastructure to their competitors to deliver their service to your home. So any ISP can use Comcast's cable or Verizon's fiber optic network to serve you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Treating it like a utility has some vague connection to making it slightly easier to enforce certain regulations. It's a thing some people have really latched on but it's not some sort of magic bullet for anything.psydude posted:Treating it like a utility requires them to allow their competitors to use their infrastructure to deliver their service to your home. So any ISP can use Comcast's cable to serve you. This isn't really true. It's something that could potentially happen but in no way guarenteed. Also I'll remind you that we have that for DSL and landlines and nearly everyone just uses the actual owner of said DSL and landline instead of the "competitors" because they get to dictate maintenance terms and can easily control what'll actually go through. Most people don't really want to have "your existing cable company, and 3 other cable companies that charge +/- 0.01% of the price for the same service". Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
adorai posted:I know that in my house, I have three options for high speed internet today, and expect at least one more in the next 3 years. For reference, the three are cable, DSL, and 3g/4g (technically I have a choice in carriers there as well). There is plenty of fiber going into the ground all over the place, so I expect some kind of fiber to the premises, or at least fiber to the street scenario soon. Actually, your choices are slow (DSL), medium (cable) and ungodly regulated and limited but sometimes "fast" 3g/4g, with the possibility of fiber unless your cable provider manages to convince your local government that the fiber provider is not playing nice. I am hoping that treating internet like a utility would prevent fast lanes, at least I sure like that better than the other plan of allowing regulated fast lanes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
It loving needs to be nationalized. That will never happen in this hosed up country, so we're looking at... what degree of hosed we want to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
"Fast lanes" aren't preventable. There's no sensible way to void all the existing in-network CDNs and private routing arragements. Also nobody's really been complainign about them for the past 15 plus years they've existed.Crotch Fruit posted:Actually, your choices are slow (DSL), medium (cable) and ungodly regulated and limited but sometimes "fast" 3g/4g In what world are you that cable is "medium" and 4g is "fast"? Current national 4g networks top out around 75 megabits down in ideal conditions, 100 or higher megabit cable connections are available all over the place, and in places where they aren't, the LTE services available tend to be much slower than them as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Crotch Fruit posted:Actually, your choices are slow (DSL), medium (cable) and ungodly regulated and limited but sometimes "fast" 3g/4g, with the possibility of fiber unless your cable provider manages to convince your local government that the fiber provider is not playing nice. I am hoping that treating internet like a utility would prevent fast lanes, at least I sure like that better than the other plan of allowing regulated fast lanes. Not every city is quite as flush with competition as mine is, but that's not a problem for the FCC to solve, it's a problem for LOCAL government and LOCAL business to solve. If you have crony corruption in your town, the answer is to vote them out, not to invite higher level cronies to the party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:"Fast lanes" aren't preventable. There's no sensible way to void all the existing in-network CDNs and private routing arragements. Also nobody's really been complainign about them for the past 15 plus years they've existed. Of course 4G is nowhere near as fast as DSL or even cable. I find that unless the moon is in proper alignment, my 4g connection is usually incredibly slow, but there are some rare moments when my 4g connection actually works at a decent speed fast enough for Netflix, that is why I said but sometimes "fast", I will admit that could appear misleading. adorai posted:I can get 25mbps DSL to my house right now, and there is nothing stopping my LEC from bumping that up to 75mbps if they chose to (25mbps with two pair, I have 6 pair coming into my home). My local cable service CURRENTLY offers 100+mbps at what I would consider to be a reasonable price (under $100/mo). 4g service is extremely fast, with serious bandwidth limits. I have no concerns about my local fiber initiatives being hijacked by Comcast. There are more than one in my town, the most prominent of which is an LLC with strong ties to the local city government. Of course, not every city is as well off as yours, hell most cities have pretty lovely choices for internet. Naturally, it's a problem with the local government, and I can do my best to vote but it will not make a difference. I can dream all I want about an end to corruption but if a politician in Kansas doesn't actively bash gays and praise Jesus their career will be over no matter what their other policies are. Not Wolverine fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Nov 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Crotch Fruit posted:Naturally, it's a problem with the local government, and I can do my best to vote but it will not make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Yeah it is ironic. . . but if the kids cant play nice, might as well give them rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Crotch Fruit posted:Yeah it is ironic. . . but if the kids cant play nice, might as well give them rules. Yeah but the rules will ultimately be written by lobbyists in such a way as to protect the incumbent. Let the market sort it out, and eliminate the barriers to that. Because otherwise the head of the FCC ends up working for Comcast after giving them a sweetheart deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
adorai posted:Yeah but the rules will ultimately be written by lobbyists in such a way as to protect the incumbent. Let the market sort it out, and eliminate the barriers to that. Because otherwise the head of the FCC ends up working for Comcast after giving them a sweetheart deal. The barriers of entry are basically insurmountable unless you can literally burn
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Forcing companies to open up their ducts / poles / network to competitors who have absolutely no capital costs is a great way of ensuring nobody invests in infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Forcing companies to open up their ducts / poles / network to competitors who have absolutely no capital costs is a great way of ensuring nobody invests in infrastructure. Not like they put all that much effort into it as it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Diviance posted:Not like they put all that much effort into it as it is. The US actually has a greater >10Mbit penetration rate than Europe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The US actually has a greater >10Mbit penetration rate than Europe. Europe is a pretty broad generalization. Are we talking about Spain, where most people still haven't heard of the internet? Or Sweden, where 100mbps is as cheap as DSL?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
The US has also dumped hundred of billions in subsidies on cable companies for infrastructure. *Everyone* in the US was supposed to have the kind of ~50 Mbps service that is only now becoming mainstream in 2005, for $40 a month. Direct-to-home fiber equal upstream/downstream rates. And it's not that the money wasn't spent, either. The telcos overcommitted and underperformed even what they could've delivered.
Factory Factory fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
psydude posted:Europe is a pretty broad generalization. Are we talking about Spain, where most people still haven't heard of the internet? Or Sweden, where 100mbps is as cheap as DSL? More than Sweden too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
But I was told everyone in Europe had $10/m gigabit Ethernet
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
That report not really broadband penetration rate. "Average speed person from country X gets from Akamai" is not the same thing as "Percentage of country X population has access to broadband faster than Y". There's a bit of correlation, but hardly an actual accurate study of broadband speed availability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Edit: You edited, but yes that is pretty much the same thing. I also slow post 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
GokieKS posted:That report not really broadband penetration rate. "Average speed person from country X gets from Akamai" is not the same thing as "Percentage of country X population has access to broadband faster than Y". There's a bit of correlation, but hardly an actual accurate study of broadband speed availability.  At the very least it's telling you that most people don't actually care about faster internet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 02:43
|
|