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

111–120 of 392 posts

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

#111

Post by CocaKoala »

diminoten wrote: post #106
CocaKoala wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lo…

>It'd be like a bread making company calling out the sandwich shop it sells bread to for not having enough stores.

No. It isn't. It's like a bread making company calling out the grocery stores for not having enough shelf space to stock all the bread that customers of the grocery store are asking to buy, saying "People keep on asking us for bread and you can't stock enough of it".

edit to add: You keep on not understanding that the only reason the demand exists is because the customers of the ISPs want it. This isn't a scenario where L3 is just trying to push data at Comcast; it just isn't. You keep on acting like it is, and it isn't, and I can't think of another way to phrase it so that you'll understand. Level3 is not just pushing data at comcast that nobody wants, and whining that comcast can't handle it. Customers of Comcast are asking for the data, Level3 is trying to provide it, and Comcast is blocking that transaction.

edit again: It's also worth noting that in this scenario, people are paying a monthly subscription fee to the grocery store that says they can come in and get certain amounts of bread (or UP TO certain amounts of bread whatever) and yet because there is not enough shelf space customers are going hungry. And yet despite the fact that people are going hungry, the grocery stores are insisting that the bakery provide, in addition to the bread, the shelves on which to store the bread. And you're arguing that since the bakery has already spent money upgrading their ovens, their proofing rooms, and their mixers, they should also upgrade the grocery store's shelves.

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

#112

Post by dfc »

[deleted] wrote: post #54
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.

[deleted]

  > This is asymetrical warfare.
When I got to that sentence I thought "Really, a war comparison?". I couldn't figure out where you were going to go with the comparison but I thought I would play along. After reading your comment a couple of times I still can't figure out what the connection is to asymmetric warfare. Who are the belligerents and the casus belli? How is this different from traditional "telecom warfare"?

This is one of the more bizarre reading experiences on HN:

I don't think that is the solution. This is asymetrical warfare...The solution to this will be worked out by the free market slowly but surely.

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

#113

Post by vanwesson »

coldpie wrote: post #80
chimeracoder wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Considering Comcast is one of the two most hated companies in America right now, by a _huge_ margin And Time Warner is the second: http://bgr.com/2014/05/20/comcast-twc-customer-satisfaction-... Nobody likes the cable companies. It would be very easy for someone to capitalize on that hatred to win public support for net neutrality; it's just a matter of crafting the right campaign.

This is why I'm so disappointed to see the small-medium ISPs hop right in bed with Comcast and co-sign anti-net neutrality letters: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/05/top-isps-threaten-to... With the national attention this issue is getting, this is a tremendous marketing opportunity to take customers away from the big dogs.

The smaller ISPs are just following Comcast's example: "You mean we can charge multiple times for the same data without doing any extra work? Sign us up!" All last-mile ISPs will eventually realize they can hold everyone hostage, so long as there is no significant competition.

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

#114

Post by thedufer »

diminoten wrote: post #75
signet wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level3 is dropping packets because $BIG_CABLE_ISP doesn't want to upgrade their cross-connects at the exchange points. Level3 sounds happy to increase this capacity, they are saying that the cable ISPs aren't negotiating with them to provide more bandwidth at these choke points. It's not Level3's job to pay for $BIG_CABLE_ISP's infrastructure, when it's their own customers who are requesting the traffic over these li…

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…

> It sounds like Level3 wants to enter into bigger-money contracts with the ISPs

As the article points out, peering rarely involves money (and shouldn't ever; as the word peer implies, its a largely symmetric relationship).

The ISPs' customers are paying the ISPs for bandwidth and then requesting traffic. Level3 is providing said traffic and then the ISP drops it because they don't have enough bandwidth. How can a reasonable person possibly interpret this as being Level3's fault?

If an ISP isn't willing to supply its customers with the bandwidth that is being paid for, they need to either fix that or stop promising things they aren't willing to deliver on.

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

#115

Post by [deleted] »

diminoten wrote: post #106
CocaKoala wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lo…

[deleted]

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

#116

Post by CocaKoala »

diminoten wrote: post #107
CocaKoala wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In what sense? Are you referring to the "well actually the contract just says you pay for UP TO certain speeds" bullshit?

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

#117

Post by deeviant »

Nacraile wrote: post #24
jfoutz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is true. TCP congestion control throttles back the speed in the presence of dropped packets.

Thus, dropped packets adversely affect throughput at a magnitude greater than the simple overhead of packet retransmission.

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

#118

Post by hga »

api wrote: post #25

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…

And Verizon, with it's pretty big FiOS buildout, and AT&T with their more limited U-verse buildout. Both are now halted except for contractual requirements, but they also offer "cable" service, and AT&T is rather nasty in protecting it, caps of 150 GiB per month if you have plain ADSL---even if AT&T is not providing U-verse in your city---and 250 GiB for U-verse customers, $10/each additional 50 GiB. Verizon occasionally hints they might do caps, but haven't yet to my knowledge (I'm an AT&T customer so I don't follow them closely).

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

#119

Post by danielweber »

mattmcknight wrote: post #77
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…

We probably need pricing more directly based on bandwidth consumed, maybe with peak hour pricing, as opposed to just based on "speed" with high bandwidth caps.

Like the water or electric company, users should pay according to usage. As you say, this isn't on total bits pushed through, because the marginal costs of sending bits at 3am is nil.

So the "usage" is based on the continued need to build out more equipment. Usage at peak hours, as you say.

I'm concerned that the ISPs will simply charge "big users" and pocket the extra fees, with "big users" moving from 1-in-a-thousand to 1-in-a-dozen as more people want to use more bandwidth. I trust my ISPs as far as I can throw them. (And I believe this distrust is at the heart of a lot of people's calls for net neutrality; simply put, they don't trust their ISP to play fair. And I don't fault them for that.)

But I don't mind something that targets the single biggest users and makes them pay extra. The water and electric systems would fail without that, and those are much simpler to model and plan for.

Thinking out loud, we need something that both

1) keeps pressure on the ISPs to keep on growing their pipes, and

2) puts pressure on the biggest users, which, again, needs to be a very small subset of people putting the biggest strain on the system. I can't come up with an exact number, but 20% of people being considered "big users" is too much.

Post reply on HN