171–180 of 180 posts
If you are experiencing a slow connection and packet loss, what is the best tool for identifying the issue? There must be a good way to find out where the problem is.
I use mtr. But reading it takes experience, so for a month or so just fire it up everywhere you go, especially when things are working well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's almost always mutually beneficial to peer. But Netflix might be the exception here right? > You can't just ignore the monopoly argument. You're right, I'm just trying to disambiguate it from the net neutrality argument, which doesn't seem to actually be relevant here (as Comcast is treating all traffic through those links poorly, not just Netflix traffic). If it is truly about the monopoly, regulators have dif…
> But Netflix might be the exception here right? The mutual benefit still exists. Comcast benefits from peering with Netflix because it allows Comcast customers to access Netflix. Comcast is just playing chicken because they know their monopoly position allows them to hold out longer than peers with actual competitors. > You're right, I'm just trying to disambiguate it from the net neutrality argument, which doesn't…
Not upgrading their connection is not the same thing as intentionally causing congestion. Especially when the connection would be fine if it weren't for the massive share of Netflix traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The regulatory hurdles that Google is demanding relief from are (largely) not the result of lobbying. They're the result of the dysfunction of municipal politics. Isn't that basically what caust1c said? It looks like the two of you are in violent agreement. :-)
No. Lobbying is when big companies spend a lot of $ to try to get their way. The dysfunctional municipal politics rayiner refers to is when politicians pander to various groups of voters to get votes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclosure: I work at a small ISP. We mostly compete with Frontier DSL and Comcast Business Class. If you're buying residential it's safe to assume you're purchasing a burst-able speed and downloads/uploads aren't going to sustain that for hours on end. Much in the same way that a Utility Company probably isn't gathering enough water for everyone to be maxing their pipes 24/7, residential ISP's don't operate under th…
in the same way that a Utility Company probably isn't gathering enough water for everyone to be maxing their pipes 24/7, residential ISP's don't operate under the assumption that every consumer will have maxed their connection at the same time That's not what's happening, though. What's happening is that the ISPs have not provisioned enough capacity to serve the actual aggregate demand at peak times. The hydraulic an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclosure: I work at a small ISP. We mostly compete with Frontier DSL and Comcast Business Class. If you're buying residential it's safe to assume you're purchasing a burst-able speed and downloads/uploads aren't going to sustain that for hours on end. Much in the same way that a Utility Company probably isn't gathering enough water for everyone to be maxing their pipes 24/7, residential ISP's don't operate under th…
Realistically, we're talking about customers who are paying for 10+ Mbps and were getting less than 2 Mbps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that it would probably violate their contracts to just stop services at an interconnect. It's not like Level 3 is losing customers or money from the congested interconnects. Their incentive to play hardball just isn't there.
If it violates their contract, doesn't a soft fail violate it also? Or will violate, whenever the rate of dropped packets goes above a given threshold. I view the hard fail as just speeding up the interconnect failure, with the positive effect of prompting action from the last mile ISP. Whenever their performance drops towards part of the internet, their value proposition gets lower. You can view the value chain as (…
In short: if you're in the US, you're paying your ISP for a certain amount of bandwidth, but your ISP is not giving it to you, because its connections to middlemen like Level 3 are maxed out. Level 3 proposes to split the cost of expanding those connections (as is common), but your ISP refuses unless it gets additional payment from Level 3, Netflix, or someone else. Meanwhile, you don't get the bandwidth you've purch…
What is cheaper? Actually giving customers the bandwidth they are paying for, or maintaining a political lobby apparatus that allows you to remain a monopoly in your industry? Do the math.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big trouble is that we need settlement-free peering, or we'll have a very different sort of internet, or maybe none at all. Though it's hard for some to remember (or to believe), there were big consumer networks prior to the advent of consumer-oriented Internet. Compuserve and AOL were their own networks. And they were abysmal. Peering not only ruined that business model, it managed to co-opt those networks and a…
How about: a representative Congress mandates strong net neutrality rules and Comcast runs a 20% margin business instead of a ~83% margin business?
Thankfully, that company and environment are gone. Let's not recreate them.
Does anyone have an idea what the European ISP is that refuses to provide enough peering capacity?
They said its not from the UK and judging from their connection points, I guess its Deutsche Telekom.
* http://www.golem.de/news/level-3-sechs-grosse-internetprovid...
* http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article117963991/Bei-Europas-T...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But Netflix might be the exception here right? The mutual benefit still exists. Comcast benefits from peering with Netflix because it allows Comcast customers to access Netflix. Comcast is just playing chicken because they know their monopoly position allows them to hold out longer than peers with actual competitors. > You're right, I'm just trying to disambiguate it from the net neutrality argument, which doesn't…
> intentionally causing congestion Not upgrading their connection is not the same thing as intentionally causing congestion. Especially when the connection would be fine if it weren't for the massive share of Netflix traffic.
If we're all all drawing too much data over the network, upgrade it and charge us more! I have no higher bandwidth options than Comcast's cable internet service. Huge lack of competition in California.