Live data from Hacker News

Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

digitalsociety.org

61–62 of 62 posts

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#61
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be the case, but if the peer made a contractual agreement that limited the peering to symmetrical traffic, then Comcast should be free to renegotiate or straight up sever the peering under the terms of any contractual agreements....if this is what is allowed by what's on the contract. While people can hem and haw about the moral and ethical implications, it seems like this is something that is likely spelled…

There's no technical evidence (you can check, quite easily, who's peering with who and if there's a cost associated) that L3 and Comcast are using a purely-symmetric SFP agreement. It's quite likely they aren't (consumer ISPs would never upload enough to large providers to get a symmetric agreement worth their while.)

Care to link me?

Re: Level 3 outbid Akamai on Netflix by reselling stolen bandwidth

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paid magazines often still sell advertising space, same is true for paid cable channels, so it's not unheard of to charge both the "broadcaster" and the "receiver".

But that is a model in which the advertises is "subsidizing" the effective cost to the end user. (Whether or not it's an actual subsidy or just a nice bit of profit for the cable network/provider is anyone's guess.) Obviously, without legislation, the internet will end up being no different, with Comcast, AT&T, and ultimately high-traffic sites like espn.com nickel-and-diming each other and end users. Sticking to the…

I agree that it is very easy for this to lead to a bad situation for customers. But that subsidizing model still applies. You know how much it costs to connect a cable line to a house? That wiring costs 100s-1000s of dollars per house (why FioS went to apartment buildings first). Of course the end users are getting subsidies.
Post reply on HN