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

51–60 of 392 posts

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

#51

Post by joshstrange »

xhrpost wrote: post #4

I like the article overall but I don't understand the author's proposed solution. The issue as it stands is apparently a lack of peering, in that big ISPs are using transit to reach large content providers rather than directly peering to those networks. So how would "kicking them out" for a maxed out connection work? If I buy transit from Level3 and my connection maxes out, I'm no longer allowed to be a customer of L…

I think he is saying that companies like Level3 should kill all peering with Comcast if they refuse to upgrade to more peering. At least temporally to get their attention and that of their customers that is.

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

#52

Post by diminoten »

fooqux wrote: post #16
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…

>Also, dropped packets isn't the end of the world. In TCP at least, the packets just get resent. Depends on what the application is, and how many are being dropped. True, standard HTTP can in theory even still work with 99% drop rate (if you're willing to wait long enough) but Netflix, multiplayer games, and any other application you can think of that demands either high-bandwidth or low-latency aren't going to work.…

Streaming services utilize a buffer, so no, it isn't the end of the world if packets are dropped. The buffer gets used while the packets get retransmitted. As for multiplayer games, most use UDP, and the ones that use TCP tend to use some tricks that allow for a certain amount of latency.

This is why the Internet isn't currently down, even though this is currently a problem.

No widely used Internet-based technology can't handle dropped packets. Zero. None.

Besides, Netflix is a unique case, as it constitutes 30% or so of all Internet traffic. You can't list Netflix as one of many, because it stands alone.

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

#53

Post by klodolph »

mhandley wrote: post #39

Would be very interesting to see what happened if the big CDN providers just depeered Comcast for 24 hours. Would certainly cost Comcast a fair amount in customer support calls, bad publicity, and properly bring the debate to the general public.

It would also give the CDNs a fair amount in customer support calls, bad publicity, and make their paying customers angry about lost business.

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

#55

Post by JTon »

mhandley wrote: post #39

Would be very interesting to see what happened if the big CDN providers just depeered Comcast for 24 hours. Would certainly cost Comcast a fair amount in customer support calls, bad publicity, and properly bring the debate to the general public.

Too risky, no? If Comcast said the problem was not with their network, but with bit CDNs. Customers would shift their rage towards them instead. The whole thing would turn into a PR pissing match

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

#56

Post by guelo »

If the peering ports are congested that means that either the ISP needs to add more ports, or they are oversubscribing their capacity. Just make it illegal to sell more capacity than you have and the problem is solved.

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

#57

Post by spindritf »

spankalee wrote: post #21
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.

because the other side also paid for it to their ISP, CDN, or the build-out and operation of their own CDN.

That's like saying that you should be able to park for free because you paid for your car, all the taxes on it, and the fee for issuing a driving license. Paying your ISP doesn't necessarily grant you unlimited access to every other network on the Internet.

There is no God-ordained fee structure here. It can be split between you, Comcast, Netflix, your landlord (many will pay for laying fibre and then for servicing it), local government... Some may be better than others but there's definitely no moral highground.

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

#58

Post by robk »

rlpb wrote: post #31
kasey_junk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not making a claim about the veracity of the counter argument to this, but it is easy to state. If network providers had to sell traffic wholesale to other companies, they would have less incentive to upgrade them as those networks then become pure commodities. Right now the local monopolies can use their networks to sell high margin services (cable) bundled with low margin services (internet traffic). If they ha…

> they would have less incentive to upgrade them as those networks then become pure commodities Pit DSL against cable, as has happened in the UK. The POTS network is owned by one company (BT) and the cable network by others. Retail customers generally have a choice of connecting to the Internet by either. BT (POTS network owner) are required to sell traffic wholesale to competitor ISPs (who then buy their own transit…

British DSL is far worse than cable in my experience. Virgin's cable & fiber offering is massively faster and has a wider footprint than DSL products I've seen.

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

#59

Post by ep103 »

klodolph wrote: post #53
mhandley wrote: post #39

Would be very interesting to see what happened if the big CDN providers just depeered Comcast for 24 hours. Would certainly cost Comcast a fair amount in customer support calls, bad publicity, and properly bring the debate to the general public.

It would also give the CDNs a fair amount in customer support calls, bad publicity, and make their paying customers angry about lost business.

I don't know about bad publicity though. To each customer support call simply say, Comcast has broken their contract with our CDN. Please call comcast. Considering Comcast is one of the two most hated companies in America right now, by a _huge_ margin, people will easily believe that, especially since in this case, it would be true. Level3 et all are enabling this behavior.

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

#60

Post by talmand »

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 would think there are few comparisons because in the long run the idea is not logical and few would agree to such an arrangement unless they were forced to. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it, but it's not always a sound business model. I'm sure it's great when you can make it happen but it would be easy to disrupt by a competitor.

It would be the equivalent of a third-party delivery service charging the buyer a fee to deliver and the seller a fee to deliver the same purchased item with their delivery trucks.

Now, some may do that; but it would be easy for a competitor to see the consumer unfriendliness of such a practice to step up and say "we only charge once per delivery!". That would likely be the end of the Double-Dipping Delivery Service because both the buyer and seller would be better off with this new service.

But that's the key, many of these ISPs don't have competition so they can try to enforce such a consumer unfriendly practice.

The question is whether am I paying to have bits delivered that I request or am I paying to have access to the Internet so that bits can be delivered to me if I request them? Based on the sales pitch and pricing from my ISP, it is clear to me I'm paying to have bits delivered.

If the ISPs will lower my pricing to be a connection and then charge companies to deliver bits to me, then that's something different. There would have to be some financial agreement between me and that company as to how to cover that cost. That could either be a direct payment transaction or I have to watch ads to cover their costs.

Netflix could charge me $20 a month if my high-speed connection was $5 a month, or even free, since they charge Netflix a nominal fee to deliver bits to me.

As far as I know, no ISP has ever sold Internet connections that way. So for them to claim that both parties need to be charged for bits delivered is attempting to double charge on a bill of goods already sold. The argument is more like, "Somebody already paid for it!" and is quite valid.

Your magazine example fails because the ads conceivably subsidize the cost of delivering the magazine to me. Without the ads, my pricing for the magazine would be higher. To be accurate to the argument, the magazine would need to charge full price for ads and not subsidize the cost of getting the magazine to me at all, charging me full price as well.

Post reply on HN