21–30 of 53 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, I guess I don't understand why sending packets to an end user over an ISP is not "transit", but I'll go ahead and admit I know very little about this subject and am probably wrong.
ISPs pay for transit, tier 1 networks do not (by definition). Level 3 is definitely a tier 1 network, but Verizon is acting as both a tier 1 and an ISP. It isn't a very complex problem, tier 1 networks don't pay transit.
I think this issue may be more subtle than we want it to be. I'm no fan of monopolistic ISPs, but it is true that when you have a peering point with unbalanced traffic flows, the side sending more traffic is supposed to pay the side receiving more traffic. You pay per byte sent, just like how the sender of a letter pays postage. This has always been the case, and as long as Verizon charges Level 3 the same amount per…
I'm no fan of monopolistic ISPs, but it is true that when you have a peering point with unbalanced traffic flows, the side sending more traffic is supposed to pay the side receiving more traffic. Such an arrangement with a consumer ISP is so preposterous I have to assume that Level3 and Verizon never expected flows to be symmetric. Level3...isn't paying for that difference. Right, because Verizon's customers pay for…
That's just how fucked up this situation is.
"Verizon, you're my enemy, I'm going to continue paying you every month while I work around your stupidity with my VPN..." That's just how fucked up this situation is.
I think this issue may be more subtle than we want it to be. I'm no fan of monopolistic ISPs, but it is true that when you have a peering point with unbalanced traffic flows, the side sending more traffic is supposed to pay the side receiving more traffic. You pay per byte sent, just like how the sender of a letter pays postage. This has always been the case, and as long as Verizon charges Level 3 the same amount per…
Or, you know, stop the bullshit and keep the Interwebz working as they've been for decades.
I think this issue may be more subtle than we want it to be. I'm no fan of monopolistic ISPs, but it is true that when you have a peering point with unbalanced traffic flows, the side sending more traffic is supposed to pay the side receiving more traffic. You pay per byte sent, just like how the sender of a letter pays postage. This has always been the case, and as long as Verizon charges Level 3 the same amount per…
> Well that's a convenient argument, given that Level 3 sends way more traffic than it receives on that link, and currently (it seems) isn't paying for that difference. That is true if Level3 was sending traffic through Verizon to say Cogent or HE. But in this case, the OP is requesting this traffic through VZ and he is paying VZ to carry this traffic for him.
That's a very disingenuous way of putting things.
Let's get all the actors in play here:
Netflix - The website/service you're trying to access
Level3 - Netflix's ISP
Version - Your ISP
You
So to get to Netflix you'er going through 2 different entities.
If you consider Level3 and Verizon to be on the same level ( after all, they're both ISPs), then your argument works the same way the other way around : Netflix is paying Level 3 for the connection between it and you, so why shouldn't Level 3 be responsible for this? Why is only Verizon responsible?
The second way of seeing things is that Verizon is responsible for the connection between you and Level3 (i.e. Level3 is a Verizon customer). Level3 wants to just plug in more cables to get better speeds on Verizon.... well who wouldn't expect to have to pay more for that?
In no situation is Level3 entitled to the maximum speed technically available to it for no cost. The counterpart to this is that it's Verizon's responsibility to offer reasonable pricing for upgrades (and not have content discrimination and conflicts of interest).
If Verizon offers the same pricing structure for backbone infrastructure to everyone who asks, it's hard to fault them on this. Level3 is in a particular position given the size of the traffic served.
But if I were a mailer for something like Amazon and were responsible for 35% of packages sent during a day (fake number), it's not like I could just ask FedEx to let me use more of its trucks and get higher priority for free.
[deleted]
The problem is verizon wants to have their cake and eat it too: bill people for (a quite large) profit margin on last mile access, then turn around and tax content providers. As if asymmetric access wasn't already part of the deal when selling last mile internet pipes. This is a textbook example of why monopolies are bad, or verizon exists to fuck us and is happy to purchase legislators to that end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no fan of monopolistic ISPs, but it is true that when you have a peering point with unbalanced traffic flows, the side sending more traffic is supposed to pay the side receiving more traffic. Such an arrangement with a consumer ISP is so preposterous I have to assume that Level3 and Verizon never expected flows to be symmetric. Level3...isn't paying for that difference. Right, because Verizon's customers pay for…
The beef of the problem is that Verizon is both a consumer ISP and a transit provider.
I think this issue may be more subtle than we want it to be. I'm no fan of monopolistic ISPs, but it is true that when you have a peering point with unbalanced traffic flows, the side sending more traffic is supposed to pay the side receiving more traffic. You pay per byte sent, just like how the sender of a letter pays postage. This has always been the case, and as long as Verizon charges Level 3 the same amount per…
> ...it is true that when you have a peering point with unbalanced traffic flows, the side sending more traffic is supposed to pay the side receiving more traffic. Up until very recently the only time you paid for peering was when you were actually buying transit. Level 3 is definitely on the right side of this argument, not only logically - but also from the perspective of precedence. Anybody interested in learning…
If Level3 (or Netflix) would read the Peering Playbook, they would see that they need to attract some upload traffic from Verizon to balance their flows, and get Verizon to upgrade the links (then, once the links are in place, they can drop the upload traffic). If I were Level3, I would find a backup service or image/video hosting site and convince them to let me advertise their IPs to Verizon/Comcast to balance the flows.
I looked for old level3 peering policies, and actually in 2004 they didn't mention balanced flows which was surprising, because most "Tier 1" networks have required balanced flows for peering for a long time.
If you don't like Level 3 paying Verizon/Comcast, consider the situation where Verizon has no backbone, and pays for 100% transit from a hypothetical Tier 1 provider. If Level3 doesn't have balanced flows (within usually a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio), most Tier 1's would depeer them as well (or refuse to upgrade circuits).