Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

cringely.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 392 posts

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#21

Post by spankalee »

spindritf wrote: post #17

Except it’s actually right (not wrong) because those bits are only coming because customers of the ISPs — you and me, the folks who have already paid for every one of those bits — are the ones who want them. What is the source of the notion that, because you paid for your consumer broadband, all bits are paid for and the charge for carrying them cannot be split with the other side of the connection? Why is it so biza…

No, it's not, because the other side also paid for it to their ISP, CDN, or the build-out and operation of their own CDN.

What Comcast and friends are asking for is a _third_ payment, just because. And don't be mistaken, if they win this battle they will start looking for the fourth payment, which is from their customers for faster service to "premium" sites like Netflix, HBO, iTunes, etc.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#22

Post by [deleted] »

diminoten wrote: post #9
JoshTriplett wrote: post #3

Somebody has to pay the money to upgrade the equipment and bandwidth available at these exchange points. The very reasonable argument in this article is that the ISPs should pay that cost, which seems reasonable given that their customers are demanding it. It sounds like the ISPs are playing a game of chicken, trying to see if their peers like Level3 will throw money in to pay for the ISP to upgrade its equipment and…

The ISPs aren't dropping the packets, Level3 is. From the article linked to in the blog: "A port that is on average utilised at 90 percent will be saturated, dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers." "We"in the quote is Level3. They're dropping the packets. Why do the ISPs have to pay for Level3's dropping of packets? Shouldn't the ISPs repl…

[deleted]

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#23

Post by siculars »

signet wrote: post #6

If a customer is paying for an internet connection, they are paying for access the full internet, to the best of their ISP's abilities. This is the net neutrality law we need: ISPs should be compelled to upgrade their backbone links as they become congested, to satisfy their customer's demand. Congestion can be easily monitored and often these peerings are "free". (Yes there is a non-zero cost to increase switch and…

This. ISP's of the like mentioned by the OP are being paid for INTERNET access. Not access to the local network resources on the ISP's network. If I pay for an X up/Y down connection to the internet then that is what I expect. I expect X up/Y down to any host/content on the internet (given that host can reply at that speed, etc.)

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#24

Post by Nacraile »

jfoutz wrote: post #10
diminoten wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ISPs aren't dropping the packets, Level3 is. From the article linked to in the blog: "A port that is on average utilised at 90 percent will be saturated, dropping packets, for several hours a day. We have congested ports saturated to those levels with 12 of our 51 peers." "We"in the quote is Level3. They're dropping the packets. Why do the ISPs have to pay for Level3's dropping of packets? Shouldn't the ISPs repl…

Dropping packets makes load problems worse, because failing users start to send even more traffic.

This is not true. TCP will retransmit, yes, but TCP congestion control will also reduce the transmit rate in response to lost packets. Overall, proper TCP implementations will back off to approximately their fair share of a contended bottleneck. The application layer sees reduced throughput, not message loss. New TCP connections start with very conservative transmit rates, so an application which is overly aggressive in abandoning slow connections and retrying will not add substantially to congestion.

UDP doesn't necessarily have these properties, but anyone who implements a high-bandwidth UDP protocol which isn't TCP congestion control friendly deserves public shaming.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#25

Post by api »

While I agree with the general thrust of the article, there is one fallacious argument here.

Cringely argues that cable breaks even and money is made on the net, but that's an artificial distinction. What if cable disappeared? Would they still make money if they had to pay for the upkeep of the network with only Internet fees? The desperation and risk of this game of chicken convinces me that the answer might be "not much." The loss of cable might very well be apocalyptic for these companies, at least from a shareholder value and quarterly growth point of view.

What's happening is very clear to me: the ISPs are trying to either harm the Internet to defend cable or collect tolls on streaming to attempt to replace cable revenue. That's because cable is dying a slow death. This is all about saving cable.

The fundamental problem is that cable ISPs have an economic conflict of interest. They are horse equipment vendors that got into the gas station business, but now the car is driving out the horse and their bread and butter is at stake.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#26

Post by spindritf »

wging wrote: post #19
spindritf wrote: post #17

Except it’s actually right (not wrong) because those bits are only coming because customers of the ISPs — you and me, the folks who have already paid for every one of those bits — are the ones who want them. What is the source of the notion that, because you paid for your consumer broadband, all bits are paid for and the charge for carrying them cannot be split with the other side of the connection? Why is it so biza…

In this case, the difference is that broadband subscribers are not being sold a magazine which they know will contain ads--they are being sold a full connection to the internet! That's the precedent, that's what we think we're getting for our money.

What does full connection to the Internet mean? No ISP can guarantee it because any other independent network can drop traffic at will. And the Internet is just a bunch of independent networks. The service you believe you paid for doesn't and cannot exist.

I can filter out all Comcast IPs on my firewall tomorrow if I feel like it. Many people actually do it to third world providers.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#27

Post by angersock »

spindritf wrote: post #17

Except it’s actually right (not wrong) because those bits are only coming because customers of the ISPs — you and me, the folks who have already paid for every one of those bits — are the ones who want them. What is the source of the notion that, because you paid for your consumer broadband, all bits are paid for and the charge for carrying them cannot be split with the other side of the connection? Why is it so biza…

Yes, by all means, let us have the Internet enjoy the same level of success as magazines!

This idea that the senders haven't paid at all is absurd; even more absurd is the idea that we want to move to a model where whoever has the deepest pockets should have the loudest voice on the 'net.

Don't people see that the value of this whole thing is that anyone can be heard by anyone else who tunes in? Adding these other barriers to entry, just to make a quick buck, is bullshit.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#28

Post by toomuchtodo »

spindritf wrote: post #17

Except it’s actually right (not wrong) because those bits are only coming because customers of the ISPs — you and me, the folks who have already paid for every one of those bits — are the ones who want them. What is the source of the notion that, because you paid for your consumer broadband, all bits are paid for and the charge for carrying them cannot be split with the other side of the connection? Why is it so biza…

> There is nothing fundamentally wrong with charging both sides. You may prefer a different fee structure but a better argument than "I already paid for it!" is necessary.

Fair enough. Eminent domain can also be used to seize the cable plant and put it under ownership of a non-profit/municipal broadband provider, who won't gouge those who request/send bits.

The knife cuts both ways.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#29

Post by xanderstrike »

spindritf wrote: post #17

Except it’s actually right (not wrong) because those bits are only coming because customers of the ISPs — you and me, the folks who have already paid for every one of those bits — are the ones who want them. What is the source of the notion that, because you paid for your consumer broadband, all bits are paid for and the charge for carrying them cannot be split with the other side of the connection? Why is it so biza…

I don't think your argument holds water. Netflix and Hulu don't get their internet connections for free. They pay for the hookup just like we do, except they buy their bits in bulk.

Incidentally, this is also how phones work. Both sides pay their own phone companies for the connection. You would be appalled if Verizon decided to start charging T-Mobile extra so that T-Mobile users could call Verizon subscribers.

The argument that "I already paid for it" is compelling and final. I paid for a service, if I don't receive that service I've been robbed. It's as simple as that.

Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

#30

Post by spankalee »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #3

Somebody has to pay the money to upgrade the equipment and bandwidth available at these exchange points. The very reasonable argument in this article is that the ISPs should pay that cost, which seems reasonable given that their customers are demanding it. It sounds like the ISPs are playing a game of chicken, trying to see if their peers like Level3 will throw money in to pay for the ISP to upgrade its equipment and…

The problem is that it's easier to compete with Level3 than with Comcast, because while it's incredibly hard to build a backbone provider, it's nearly impossible to build an ISP. This asymmetry is making Comcast bold. They think that eventually competitors to Level3, Netflix, etc., will take advantage of their poor connectivity, pay them, and reap the rewards. They might be right.
Post reply on HN