[deleted]
did you actually read the post? Consumer or Business ISP bandwidth is not at play at all here. We are talking ISP-to-ISP.
Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
11–20 of 62 posts
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#12utterly 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,…
Right, where comcast pays L3 to deliver what comcast has to send. L3 still needs to pay someone (either comcast or someone else) to take the what they have to offer. No one wants traffic, thats why L3 has to pay to send Netflix to customers.
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#13I 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!
Above, I'm not speaking of any particular agreement. For the current Level3-Comcast issue, as I read that "article" they didn't break it, but Level 3 would cause operating conditions that made the existing Comcast contract no longer applicable, so they needed a new agreement of some sort.
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#14utterly 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,…
> comcast is a customer of level3
It sounds to me like they used to be equals, and now Level3 is the customer.
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#15How exactly could an ISP ever match the upload volume of a downstream contract?
It's technically impossible.
Even without netflix, the download to upload ratio is huge.
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#16I 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…
I have an internet connection from Comcast. If I only ever connect to other Comcast customers, I should get my connection for free?
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#17Lots 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.
Even though Comcast customers already pay Comcast to receive those bytes? As others have pointed out above.
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#18Personally, I would take three extra network hops and a slower internet if it meant Comcast got screwed. Having been practically forced numerous times to use Comcast as a home internet provider because there were no other options, spent days (when you add it all up) on their stupid support line and having been bit by not calling after 3 or 6 months "trial" (or actually them putting you on hold enough - like 1+ hour), I dont care. This article is asking me to be worried/sorry about the equivalent of a child molester of ISPs. Sorry. NO
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#19Lots 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.
"It makes perfect sense that Comcast should be paid for access to their customers."
I disagree, heartily. Comcast's customers are paying Comcast for access to the entire internet, not just to the little segment of the network that Comcast owns.
Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth
#20[deleted]