Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Verizon made an enemy tonight

iamnotaprogrammer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Verizon made an enemy tonight

#41

Post by djchen »

rtpg wrote: post #27
djchen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>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…

If I am a paying customer of an ISP, I sure would expect them to get me the content I want at a reasonably high speed, even if that means they need to bring up additional capacity.

You could say Verizon is overselling their bandwidth to customers and that's why they have degraded connections to Level3. Is it not Verizon's obligation to their customers to upgrade their connections to handle what they've sold to their customers?

Re: Verizon made an enemy tonight

#42

Post by grecy »

jpgvm wrote: post #39

Verizon, TWC, Comcast. All of these providers are local monopolies. This is the root of the problem. Here in Australia I can choose any number of retail ISPs that will service my Fibre to the Home connection. If I was not living in the building I am now I would be able to choose any number of ADSL ISPs. This creates competition and fixes the problem. Funnily enough this access is legislated here in Australia. Yes. Le…

Everyone wins.

No. The rich can't get obscenely richer.

Re: Verizon made an enemy tonight

#43

Post by jedrek »

jpgvm wrote: post #39

Verizon, TWC, Comcast. All of these providers are local monopolies. This is the root of the problem. Here in Australia I can choose any number of retail ISPs that will service my Fibre to the Home connection. If I was not living in the building I am now I would be able to choose any number of ADSL ISPs. This creates competition and fixes the problem. Funnily enough this access is legislated here in Australia. Yes. Le…

I firmly believe markets should be regulated for competition. I'm sure there are examples of companies merging and creating an improved experience for their customers, but I can't think of any. On the other hand, I can list half a dozen companies I've done business with, where a merger has reduced the quality of service and while increasing its price.

Tons of markets that have been "deregulated" have become more competitive - national airlines in Europe, Ma Bell in the US - but they are almost all about breaking up a government sponsored/created monopoly. The US market telecom market has done an amazing job re-merging, to the point that a few more mergers and it'll be Ma Bell all over again.

Re: Verizon made an enemy tonight

#44

Post by nishonia »

toast0 wrote: post #30
nishonia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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…

I was pretty sure the precedent was that high volume peering was for 'balanced flows'. At a public peering point with a shared LAN, balanced flows aren't usually as required, but capacity would usually be less as well. 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, onc…

Flow ratio balance will fall apart for whoever has the shortest route to Netflix, so it is certainly a very interesting problem. Verizon has demonstrated that it isn't interested in fixing the problem though (by refusing Netflix cache devices). So even if Level 3 were to somehow balance the traffic, you can be sure that Verizon would still screw with Netflix traffic - they're simply using the balance argument as an excuse.

Re: Verizon made an enemy tonight

#45

Post by Veratyr »

jpgvm wrote: post #39

Verizon, TWC, Comcast. All of these providers are local monopolies. This is the root of the problem. Here in Australia I can choose any number of retail ISPs that will service my Fibre to the Home connection. If I was not living in the building I am now I would be able to choose any number of ADSL ISPs. This creates competition and fixes the problem. Funnily enough this access is legislated here in Australia. Yes. Le…

> Better yet we have embarked on building a Fibre to the Home national network called the National Broadband Network

Just feel I should add that while we did embark on building a Fibre to the Home network, after the last election we're switching to a Fibre to the Node network instead.

Re: Verizon made an enemy tonight

#46

Post by MaysonL »

kentonv wrote: post #7

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…

Are there any consumer-facing ISPs which send as much traffic to somebody like Level 3 as they get from them? I doubt it: most consumers recieve a lot more data than they send. So by your logic, all people peering with Verizon should pay them (except maybe TWC or Comcast).

Re: Verizon made an enemy tonight

#47

Post by sbalea »

kentonv wrote: post #7

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…

So if Netflix clients would start pushing random bits upstream to balance their downstream, everybody would be happy. Even better if they push a bit more, then Verizon should start paying Level 3, no?

Re: Verizon made an enemy tonight

#48

Post by TheCoelacanth »

kentonv wrote: post #14
nishonia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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…

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.

Transit - I send you data and you deliver it to another ISP or backbone provider.

Not transit - I send you data and you deliver it to someone in your own network.

Re: Verizon made an enemy tonight

#49

Post by pconf »

yxhuvud wrote: post #22
nitrogen wrote: post #15

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.

It looks to me like the OP is making more of a beef about Verizon's advertised speeds being significantly different from their actual speeds. That Verizon is continuing to advertise speeds that it intentionally is not delivering, IMO, constitutes fraudulent advertising. This can and should be the basis of, and resolved by, a class action suit.

It's no different really than an ISP that advertises 100Mbps, has ethernet to the home, but only a T3 to the Internet.

I'm sure their customer contract has clauses which specify that "actual speeds may vary". This does not, however, make their advertised speeds any less knowingly false.

Re: Verizon made an enemy tonight

#50

Post by kentonv »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #48
kentonv wrote: post #14

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.

Transit - I send you data and you deliver it to another ISP or backbone provider. Not transit - I send you data and you deliver it to someone in your own network.

Yeah, the thing is, I don't consider myself to be part of my ISP's network. I consider my ISP to be "transit"ing packets from the internet to my network. :) But I guess that's not the accepted definition.
Post reply on HN