It will be interesting to see how gaming download services such as Xbox Live, PSN, Steam, etc would be affected as there as the file size of video games gets larger due to advances in the video game industry.
Level3 is without peer, now what to do?
101–110 of 392 posts
Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?
#102This wouldn't happen if those ISPs didn't have local monopolies. Networks should be opened by selling traffic wholesale to other companies so that they can compete for subscribers on those networks. The network owners would have more than enough money for upgrades and if they don't, downlevel ISPs will sue them.
We have essentially such a system in Germany, does not work well. Thing is, that the owner of the network has then to compete with the resellers, but the resellers need to play nice with the owner. The result is a total mess of regulation to force the network owner ( T-Systems) to play nice.
Back in the dial-up days I had my choice of ISPs. Some people chose on price, I chose on quality/service, and mine wasn't that much more than the cheapos.
I can't recall any issues with the underlying phone company operator of the wires, although that may be because the wires were primarily for phone and they have to work by law (I think).
I miss the days of being able to choose my ISP. Now I have Comcast, with CenturyLink DSL an inferior possible second choice.
Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?
#103"and make their profit on the Internet because it costs so little to provide once the basic cable plant is built."
That's some big hand waving, because laying the cable costs a fortune, and takes many years to recoup the cost which is why there is so few are competing for this "super profitable" business.
Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitch.tv, justin.tv, youtube. That's off the top of my head and I'm confident there are more than I'm missing. There are plenty of video streaming services; not all of them are as large as netflix, but to say "Netflix is a unique case" is pretty weird. And dropping packets isn't the end of the world, but it's certainly not good. Should we just ignore a problem just because the world isn't ending?
Netflix is a unique case. No one even comes close to network usage. Not even close. It's a very unique case, given its volume. And I don't know who here said to ignore this problem, but they're wrong too. It's just that this isn't the "It’s insulting." problem the submission tries to paint it as. His solution is to "throw the bums out". Are you kidding me? Why are we wasting our time reading and talking about this tr…
Can you clarify for me why I shouldn't feel insulted that I'm paying for a certain level of service from my ISP, and yet not receiving that service while they insist that it's not their fault?
Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Perhaps, but something has to give. Maybe directly pissing off 4 million customers is what's needed to get these monopolies broken?
Or people might wonder what gives these CDNs the right to declare warfare against their ISP and demand regulation of the CDNs.
Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't that the point? Level3 is capable of handling more traffic but the ISPs are not. So what? It sounds like Level3 wants to enter into bigger-money contracts with the ISPs but the ISPs don't want to, so Level3 is appealing to the masses to help them rake in extra cash (to justify the expenses they've incurred upgrading their equipment). Why does Level3 get the benefit of being David here? IT just seems like th…
What? Level3 isn't appealing to the masses to help them rake in extra cash. They don't need to. Do you think Level3 just throws data at Comcast nonstop, and Comcast is helpless to stop it? Customers of Comcast ask for data that Level3 is trying to provide; Comcast can't handle the bandwidth. But the only reason the data is flowing is because the customers of Comcast want it; it's not like Level3 is forcing Comcast to…
You've got to ask yourself why Level3 is writing blog posts about this in the first place. It'd be like a bread making company calling out the sandwich shop it sells bread to for not having enough stores.
BUT WE'VE MADE ALL THIS BREAD WHY WON'T YOU BUY MORE?! JUST OPEN UP 100 NEW STORES I KNOW YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT!
Level3 invested money in their infrastructure, but Comcast, et. al. have not (yet). Level3 is losing money by having all this additional capacity, are they not? So clearly it's in their best interest to light a fire under the ISP's collective ass to try to get them to upgrade quickly.
Oh hey look, a political issue has appeared that does precisely that. Why wouldn't Level3 latch onto that movement and attempt to use it for financial gain in the form of more favorable peering agreements?
Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix is a unique case. No one even comes close to network usage. Not even close. It's a very unique case, given its volume. And I don't know who here said to ignore this problem, but they're wrong too. It's just that this isn't the "It’s insulting." problem the submission tries to paint it as. His solution is to "throw the bums out". Are you kidding me? Why are we wasting our time reading and talking about this tr…
Can you clarify for me why I shouldn't feel insulted that I'm paying for a certain level of service from my ISP, and yet not receiving that service while they insist that it's not their fault?
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.
Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really think your comment makes sense, if you and I are juggling balls and suddenly you throw up your hands and shout "I can't take any more balls" do you think I should pick up more balls and throw them at your face or should I leave them on the ground (which in this analogy would be level 3 dropping the packets)
What do you mean when you say, "Throwing their hands up"? Are you saying the ISPs are refusing to route any traffic after a certain threshold? Does Level3 get cut off entirely if it exceeds its bandwidth limit?
They effectively are refusing to route after a certain threshold. Their connections are saturated and they aren't wanting to play ball the way other peers have (at least per Level 3's side of the story). So once their X Gigabit link is saturated, quality goes down. They don't want to use the same arrangement that Level 3 has made with others (with respect to cost distribution) to upgrade the connection so the situation remains.
Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?
#109Regulate ISPs as utilities.
Common carriers are the words of art for these sorts of utilities. And Comcast and company are in steadily increasing danger of this as they piss off more and more voters (at a certain point, all the money in the world is of no interest to a politician who perceives himself in danger of having to spend more time with his family after the next election; gun owners have demonstrated this many times).
Re: Level3 is without peer, now what to do?
#110Except 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…
What if we look at it from the other side? Here's an argument that's very similar to yours:
What is the source of the notion that, because Netflix paid for bandwidth, 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 bizarre that both sides of the connection have to pay for it? Because you're used to your phone working differently?
As an analogy, you know how you used to pay for cable and the cable company paid money to stations they showed you? The TV station split its fee in two: the cable company paid part of it, and the advertisers paid the other part. It's the same here.
If you're going to say that one side gets to charge at both ends what makes the receiving side special? Why shouldn't the side with the content get to double dip instead?