121–130 of 392 posts
Hardly. We've experienced the whole interconnect brinkmanship locally too (South Africa). Its actually quite the opposite - the interconnect things are a lot nastier in other countries because it tends to be paid for (powerful co vs underdog) whilst the bigger US setups seem to run mostly open peering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you actually are receiving the level of service you're paying for, you just didn't know what you were paying for when you signed up.
In what sense? Are you referring to the "well actually the contract just says you pay for UP TO certain speeds" bullshit?
You having a month of 720p instead of 1080p Netflix is worth it to the ISPs instead of raising your service prices by $5 bucks every single month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Monopolies are not so difficult to break. You just need to convince the politicians that doing so will get them reelected. And to do that you need to get the public really annoyed. Now how could you possibly do that I wonder
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…
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.
1. Peering is based on equal traffic both ways. At the moment we tend to download gigabytes with a few bytes of request. As video-communications really takes off (yes chicken and egg - see below) this will get lost in the noise 2. rise of ad-hoc local networks This might come out of mobiles, this might be me dreaming, and it might come with sensible home router designs, but ultimately most of the traffic I care about…
The problem is your point #3 has never been true, though. In each case, in American history (though I don't know about water), the utility was privatized for _years_, became local monopolies, and used that monopolistic advantage to become one of the most major Washington lobbying industries of the time, often to the massive detriment to specific sections of the economy. In each case it was only _after_ an alternative…
There is an interesting unbalance because Comcast has so much leverage by owning the last mile, they can push around Tier 1 providers. I'd like to fix that, mostly by creating a public policy around municipally owned Layer 1 infrastructure between customers in their cities and a city exchange building. Conceptually it would be no different than the city owning the sewers and outsourcing the water treatment plant to a…
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to go with customers being mad with who they send a big check to every month (e.g. Comcast). 99% of people only know about their ISP, not their ISP's providers.
Not a big check, but they'd also be frustrated with Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime whom they also send money to each month (or year). The average customer wouldn't understand that it's the middleman causing problems, not one of the two endpoints (service provider or content provider).