Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
digitalsociety.org
Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
1–10 of 62 posts
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#2[deleted]
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#3I still fail to see why a leaf node internet provider thinks they should be paid for receiving the data their customers have requested.
Paying for transits is easy to understand, and in a complicated topology paying for bytes-in as a peer makes sense because they may be transits.
For a leaf node network like Comcast, whose customers pay to receive bytes and pay to have their connections installed to then demand payment from producers for supplying those bytes seems unjustified.
The author tries to hang this on the relatively higher build out cost per customer Mbps of residential nodes compared large commercial drops, but that is just different businesses. The residential providers already charge many multiples higher for bandwidth, this is just haggling about the multiplier.
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#4[deleted]
No. The stolen bandwidth in question is between L3 and Comcast, not between you and Comcast. It's "stolen" because they had a contractual agreement which L3 is breaking, which is perhaps stretching the meaning of "stolen" but is defensible, I think. (Or at least so the story goes, I can't vouch for any element of it.)
This is all sausage making details that go on all the time and shouldn't and probably still won't actually involve you.
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#5utterly stupid.
comcast is a customer of level3, not a peer. even though marketing has blurred the lines (i blame overly ambitious hosting companies), there is a very large difference between peering and being a transit customer.
what applies here is a transit agreement, even though george ou completely skips over that in his analysis by assuming comcast is not a customer.
to be redundant: this is not a peering spat, because comcast and level3 DO NOT PEER, comcast is a level3 customer.
customer.
customer.
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#6[deleted]
No. The stolen bandwidth in question is between L3 and Comcast, not between you and Comcast. It's "stolen" because they had a contractual agreement which L3 is breaking, which is perhaps stretching the meaning of "stolen" but is defensible, I think. (Or at least so the story goes, I can't vouch for any element of it.) This is all sausage making details that go on all the time and shouldn't and probably still won't ac…
stolen is not a stretch, it's absolutely invalid.
in peering agreements, if your ratios are out of whack and you're pushing an uneven traffic distribution, you get a warning, and if it keeps up, you get depeered.
in a transit agreement, like what comcast and level3 have. there's nothing to steal, you (comcast) pay for the bandwidth that comes across the pipe your get from your provider (level3).
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#7The article does a decent job of introducing the concepts of peering and transit. However, it's pretty long winded and goes through a number of tortured justifications. Here's a much simpler explanation:
Comcast is charging Level 3 because they can.
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#8I still fail to see why a leaf node internet provider thinks they should be paid for receiving the data their customers have requested. Paying for transits is easy to understand, and in a complicated topology paying for bytes-in as a peer makes sense because they may be transits. For a leaf node network like Comcast, whose customers pay to receive bytes and pay to have their connections installed to then demand payme…
? Just because an agreement doesn't make 100% sense to you doesn't mean it can be unilaterally broken!
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#9[deleted]
Internet does not work that way.
You have a connection to certain operators network (at certain bandwidth) and that operator may have connections to one or more other operators. There is no "internet" you have bandwidth to, only interconnected networks.
The connections between operators can be classified into two classes. If the operators feel that they both get relatively equal mutual benefit, they may connect each other for free. On the other hand, if the other operator is reaping profits by hogging other operators bandwidth, then the operator who's bandwidth is being (ab)used may try to negotiate compensation, or just disconnect the other operator.
edit: I think I should add a disclaimer that I'm not involved at this level of operations, so most stuff is just afaik, and may be false.
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#10Lots of people seem to be forgetting that content providers want to connect to customers just as much as the customers want the content.
Comcast:"L3 you want to connect to all my cable customers fast and you don't want to pay even more to get to me through AT&T so lets make a deal."
It makes perfect sense that Comcast should be paid for access to their customers.