The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

Sun Apr 27 06:23:46 UTC 2014

>How is this *not* Comcast's problem?  If my users are requesting more
traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
capacity to handle that?  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add
ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.  Am I missing
something?

Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that
point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix
would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get
the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if
Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or
should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for
those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't
basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I
couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the
position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once
that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment
for delivering it so there is no double billing.

This diagram best describes the relationship (ignoring pricing):
http://www.digitalsociety.org/files/gou/free-and-paid-peering.png

"Content provider" would be Netflix and Comcast would be Broadband ISP 1.

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert at stargate.ca>wrote:

> Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct
> me if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap.  With
> Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the
> background of that there's obviously room for some heated opinions, but
> here goes anyway...
>
> >A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had
> thought
> >to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network
> >providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry
> yours
> >and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under
> >modern realities.
>
> I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed".  Not saying
> it's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet".
>
> Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes
> settlement-free peering viable:
> "The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was
> sending to the other was roughly equivalent."
>
> ...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix
> needs to buck up:
> "Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge
> amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with
> sufficient quality."
>
> But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge
> network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to
> Comcast users the traffic that they requested.  Is there really anything
> more nuanced here than:
>
> 1.  Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network
> according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with.  (Nothing wrong
> here; oversubscription is a fact of life).
> 2.  Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market.
> 3.  Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and
> suck in more data than Comcast was betting on.
> 4.  Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the
> heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their
> customers' usage.
>
> How is this *not* Comcast's problem?  If my users are requesting more
> traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
> capacity to handle that?  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add
> ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.  Am I missing
> something?
>
> Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards
> double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized "Open
> Internet" rules don't help on that front.  Now, Comcast is free to leverage
> their customers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's
> line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting
> here.  Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point.  Considering
> the lack of broadband options for large parts of the US, though, it seems
> that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real
> recourse while that plays out.
>
> --
> Hugo
>
> ________________________________________
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> on behalf of Larry Sheldon <
> LarrySheldon at cox.net>
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
> enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
>
> h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
>
> FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/
>
> Forward!  On to the next windmill, Sancho!
> --
> Requiescas in pace o email           Two identifying characteristics
>                                          of System Administrators:
> Ex turpi causa non oritur actio      Infallibility, and the ability to
>                                          learn from their mistakes.
>                                            (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
>