|
I haven't been able to find anything on the mechanics of how it will work, just that the deal will lead to better viewing experiences for Comcast customers. The lack of competition is a problem, but I honestly think the real problem will be once there is competition and Netflix has to pay every major ISP a fee for similar services. That will drive subscription costs up and customers who don't subscribe to a big name ISP will be screwed because their providers won't be able to negotiate a deal with the content providers.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
Xandu posted:Aren't they basically paying for Comcast to host Netflix's content to limit transmission times? Yes. Netflix's current setup with their peering partners has been inadequate, and direct peering is already practiced by companies such as Microsoft, Facebook and Google. For reference there's been ongoing conflict between Level 3, one of Netflix's current peering partners, and Comcast and Verizon due to the fact that having Level 3 suddenly add a bunch of asymmetric traffic to Comcast and Verizon's previously settlement-free peering with Level 3 upset balances, and eventually resulted in Level 3 paying both of those companies for transfer imbalances incurred by Netflix using Level 3. So instead of Netflix pays Level 3 pays Comcast for Netflix's output, it's now Netflix directly connects to Comcast and pays them directly. And incidentally, if it goes through completely Level 3 will probably stop having to pay Comcast and can go back to essentially free of charge settlement-free connectivity. door Door door posted:I haven't been able to find anything on the mechanics of how it will work, just that the deal will lead to better viewing experiences for Comcast customers. The lack of competition is a problem, but I honestly think the real problem will be once there is competition and Netflix has to pay every major ISP a fee for similar services. That will drive subscription costs up and customers who don't subscribe to a big name ISP will be screwed because their providers won't be able to negotiate a deal with the content providers. You seem to be missing that Netflix was already having to pay other companies for internet transit into Comcast's and other ISP's networks. The payments to the intermediary companies now go down at roughly the same rate asthe payments to the ISPs go up. Additionally, Netflix's revised projected costs/revenue info for the upcoming quarter hasn't changed significantly, indicating their costs for direct connection look to be on par with their costs for transit through other providers. And the smaller ISPs/companies don't need to deal with direct peering, because the peering agreements they already have can handle Netflix's traffic just fine. The smaller an ISP gets the less problem they'll have handling their Netflix traffic. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html This guy claims that the Netflix / Comcast deal has nothing to do with net neutrality. It's a little over my head.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
albedoa posted:http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html It doesn't for this reason: net neutrality is meant to refer to "neutrally" treating data flowing between two networks no matter where that data came from. So for example, you don't get to suddenly decide you're going to slow down traffic coming in from Company A over general network connections unless they pay up like Company B was doing, for their traffic that was also coming across general network connections. Directly hooking up your major website to an ISP skips the question of neutrality all together. Now the ISP and the other company have an agreement that is essentially similar to the other company using that ISP as their own ISP - in fact the connection is often accomplished by running a simple large-scale business-class connection out to the other company's various servers or other points of presence. And since that ISP is now acting as the ISP for those systems, they're in the same internal network as you, the guy at home with a residential internet connection, and there's no traversing other networks on the way in. Now obviously in the case of a direct hookup, there is a company now paying the ISP directly for access. However, you always have to pay someone for access - for any internet access both you and the place you're accessing needed to pay for internet access or have someone pay for you - and the ISP being paid is providing access just like the other company's former access provider that also went into the ISP did. ---- Links between ISPs and general peering providers often operate on either a "clearance free" basis where the link in to the other network does about the same traffic as the link out, where no or only minimal charges are billed for keeping the connection going. If a link turns heavily asymmetric, where a whole bunch more data is leaving than is coming in, the peering arrangement will usually switch so that they network receiving the traffic gets paid by the network sending the traffic. Services like Netflix where the data coming into them is very low bandwidth things like basic commands for browsing and play control, and the data coming out is tons of actual video/audio data have a tendency to create solidly asymmetric links out. And any peering network providing transit of their data to customer ISPs is likely to end up with their own overall connections with the ISPs to be asymmetric, leading to eventually losing settlement-free privileges and starting to have to pay for the data volume (and of course they pass this cost on to the service that made them asymmetric when these things happen!) For reference here, an ISP's internal network infrastructure usually has far more capacity available then the peering links between their own network and other networks required to access the rest of the internet. As a simplification, the internal network might be able to handle 100 terabits per second, but the outside links go to outside network A up to 30 terabits per second, outside B for 25 terabits per second, and outside C for 10 terabits per second. Say a Service has an agreement with outside network C to carry a large amount of data for them, and the customers of the ISP use 8 terabits per second from them at peak. So network C tries to transfer through all data from their other clients that people on the ISP want and have to deal with this large load from the Service. This will result in congestion on C's link in that can only handle 10 terabits per second total, which may result in degradation of service for the Service or C's other customers. Both the ISP and C will argue with each other on who should pay for upgrading this link in, but if the Service instead decides to make their own links into the ISP, then suddenly C's bottleneck goes away, Service stops paying C some of the money they were paying to carry data, and Service instead pays ISP to carry data directly. So now instead of overloading one link into the ISP's network, Service's large data flow can easily run through the ISP's network while all the other data links from other networks run uncongested. Payments for data carriage switch based on who's actually carrying the data (it's now ISP itself rather than network C that delivered into ISP), and you seperately have resolved a point of contention between network C and the ISP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:It doesn't for this reason: net neutrality is meant to refer to "neutrally" treating data flowing between two networks no matter where that data came from. So for example, you don't get to suddenly decide you're going to slow down traffic coming in from Company A over general network connections unless they pay up like Company B was doing, for their traffic that was also coming across general network connections. Ahh, I think I understand. So the question of neutrality in this case is avoided, because net neutrality is meant to benefit those parties which are using the A, B, and C connections--which is to say, your average forums goon, or a smaller business that can't afford (or indeed require) their own data pipe. So this agreement is actually beneficial, since while the financial equation comes out to zero, the direct pipe from Netflix through Comcast means Comcast customers will have better Netflix access now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Ahh, I think I understand. So the question of neutrality in this case is avoided, because net neutrality is meant to benefit those parties which are using the A, B, and C connections--which is to say, your average forums goon, or a smaller business that can't afford (or indeed require) their own data pipe. Yeah, essentially, Netflix only got into the situation where switching to direct access instead was viable because they were such an overwhelmingly popular service that needs a ton of bandwidth. And the carriers they contracted with to provide that bandwidth had problems handling all that bandwidth getting into all the ISPs necessary. That's a very special case, honestly. Financially, the prices charged for access are probably gonna be about the same between what they were previously and what they are now. Some of the peering carriers that were and are being penalized for Netflix turning their transfers heavily asymmetric will benefit from getting back to settlement free status. And yes, Comcast customers are definitely going to see much better performance, since Netflix will shortly be switching over to directly feeding into the Comcast internal network at several locations. Again as mentioned, companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft have been doing direct peering too, in order to reap the benefits of going right into the networks. An additional benefit is that since this large amount of usage is being completely redirected out of normal routing, there's less congestion in the internet-at-large. If Netflix brings all of its estimated 30% of American internet bandwidth usage at peak times out to direct ISP feeds, that's a ton of usage cleared off general networks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
The possibility of legal liability for this sort of situation (or of being forced to offer every minor website the same terms as Netflix) is one reason why the carriers challenged the net neutrality rules as written. They're certainly not the good guys, but they has reasons for the challenge beyond the mustache-twirling caricature that's sometimes presented.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The possibility of legal liability for this sort of situation (or of being forced to offer every minor website the same terms as Netflix) is one reason why the carriers challenged the net neutrality rules as written. They're certainly not the good guys, but they has reasons for the challenge beyond the mustache-twirling caricature that's sometimes presented. Eh? They do offer the same terms to all comers as they did to Netflix, on the Comcast for Business website you can sign up to direct peer with Comcast just as Netflix is doing. The terms of this is that any company wanting to do this has to be prepared to pay Comcast proportionate fees for the traffic load they'll bring in. Direct peering has never been considered by the FCC to be under the purview of net neutrality regulations, though they have considered regulating it as a separate thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
drat, I thought I understood this poo poo but most of that went over my head. Netflix works fine on my current Comcast connection anyways, don't see how it can get "better".
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
I don't suppose anyone here has a suggestion on how to try and get Comcast to stop with this loving idiotic download limit? Short of calling and complaining about their new attitude, or going without internet (The only other provider, AT&T is doing the exact same thing only with an even stricter limit) I am unfortunately unsure what else to do. I am going to inform netflix the reason we will no longer be paying for their service is because of this limitation on our internet, and that we would in fact be interested in their service if comcast would take the stick out from their rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:I don't suppose anyone here has a suggestion on how to try and get Comcast to stop with this loving idiotic download limit? Short of calling and complaining about their new attitude, or going without internet (The only other provider, AT&T is doing the exact same thing only with an even stricter limit) I am unfortunately unsure what else to do. Question: have you actually exceeded the limit yet, and if so did they actually do anything to you? Essentially the reason they now have to give a number as a limit, is that they used to simply disconnect or ask people to upgrade if they were both using a lot of bandwidth and at the same time causing local network issues. Naturally, this meant that what constituted "a lot of data" varied wildly throughout their service areas. The FCC stepped in and said you have to have an actual number to give out as allowable, because going case by case on this is unfair service. So now Comcast has "300 GB" as the limit, except they enforce it very selectively - in some areas they stick to it tightly, in other areas they'll never ding you for going over the limit. Same sort of deal with AT&T except they enforce the cap in much more areas. For what it's worth though, both Comcast and AT&T offer unlimited internet as part of their "business" plans which can really just be bought for any kind of customer/location. You may have also noticed that ads for their residential services are careful not to directly state you'll get unlimited internet usage these days - they used to when they could get away with not giving any sort of idea for a limit and enforcing arbitrary ones. Edit: Aside from all this though, caps on bandwidth usage by residential customers is rather common across the world. The precise limits vary, but even something like the provider in Japan who sets a 30 GB per day limit (obviously 900 GB in a normal month) is still a limit as much as the DSL providers in Canada that give you 30 GB a month on their high end plans - and 5 GB a month on their lower end plans. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Eh? They do offer the same terms to all comers as they did to Netflix, on the Comcast for Business website you can sign up to direct peer with Comcast just as Netflix is doing. The terms of this is that any company wanting to do this has to be prepared to pay Comcast proportionate fees for the traffic load they'll bring in. Except that "being able to sign up for the same service" doesn't mean paying the same amount - Netflix likely negotiated a discount for the consistent volume and commercial appeal of their service, while Comcast would probably expect MyBob.com to pay more for it And peering absolutely is a concern, even if the FCC hasn't historically targeted it - direct peering agreements pretty much definitionally require treating traffic from one source differently than traffic from another, which is enough to violate at least the letter of the anti discrimination rule, if not the current applications of it. As a risk averse outside lawyer for a large corporation (which I frequently am), I would tell my client to be concerned in that situation too. If the "commercially reasonable" language goes into the new one, that concern basically goes away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Except that "being able to sign up for the same service" doesn't mean paying the same amount - Netflix likely negotiated a discount for the consistent volume and commercial appeal of their service, while Comcast would probably expect MyBob.com to pay more for it MyBob would still not pay anywhere near as much as Netflix is paying though, because they're unlikely to put out anywhere near as much data. For smaller companies, it's usually far more cost-effective to pay rent within multiple ISPs' internal network data centers for the power, data usage, and other facilities needed to co-locate caching servers. The service fees for these are usually the same as co-locating in general-purpose data centers. Direct peering has been done and accepted for well over 20 years though, typically it's been done by two kinds of businesses - one is very large companies seeking to get a better rate/reliability then going through normal transit/peering companies, the other is small time companies where most of the people they need to access them are on the ISP. For the small time people, they'll also be using the ISP to get to other customers outside the ISP. At the most basic level, you literally have a small time business buying typical business internet service for their office and running a server there. The problem would come if there was a pattern of deliberately underbuilding and throttling normal peering connections with general-access networks. But that hasn't actually happened, just peering networks themselves promising their clients more than they can reliably deliver. edit: You might want to look over their terms for settlement-free peering here http://www.comcast.com/peering/ and their terms for paid peering here http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=7922&peerParticipantsPrivatesPage=1 Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Question: have you actually exceeded the limit yet, and if so did they actually do anything to you? Well apparently as a bonus we get three months per year that they ignore the cap and let us download whatever the gently caress we want, and supposedly from now on whenever we go over it we will be charged for 50 more gig. The limit itself is 300 gig which...well they seem to rather strangely check. previous to this we apparently almost never went over 300 gig, and now we've gone over 300 gig three months in a row. The next month is when they'll actually charge us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Well apparently as a bonus we get three months per year that they ignore the cap and let us download whatever the gently caress we want, and supposedly from now on whenever we go over it we will be charged for 50 more gig. The limit itself is 300 gig which...well they seem to rather strangely check. previous to this we apparently almost never went over 300 gig, and now we've gone over 300 gig three months in a row. The next month is when they'll actually charge us. Check what they're saying you'll have to pay for going over versus the price it would be to switch to business internet service from them instead. If they'd end up being close, the smart thing to do is to switch over to business because then they among other things set you up with better customer service, priority of repair in case of local outages and other stuff like that, as well as unlimited access.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Right, but total payment and payment per bit are totally different metrics - Netflix will beat MyBob on one and be behind on the other. Is that unreasonable discrimination? It's enough to get taken to court on, at least. Further, the rules as written essentially forced Comcast to direct peer with MyBob upon MyBobs request, even if that makes no sense for Comcast to do. While a footnote in the rules suggested that peering arrangements wouldn't violate the antidiscrimination provision, the language of the rule and other comments suggests otherwise. I'm not saying that the providers aren't interested in making money as well, but it's not as simple as the tech press makes it out to be - there really are buried legal risks for providers in the rules. You can be okay with that - I mostly am - but they're still there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Check what they're saying you'll have to pay for going over versus the price it would be to switch to business internet service from them instead. If they'd end up being close, the smart thing to do is to switch over to business because then they among other things set you up with better customer service, priority of repair in case of local outages and other stuff like that, as well as unlimited access. Will do, though I believe that it's vastly more expensive, and money is tight right now. I might just have to either cut the cable once 300 gig is up or hope they just don't care.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Right, but total payment and payment per bit are totally different metrics - Netflix will beat MyBob on one and be behind on the other. Is that unreasonable discrimination? It's enough to get taken to court on, at least. So far, no one who has entered into direct peering agreements with any major ISPs have taken them to court on basis of payment discrimination, and indeed it's not even made the news before when companies agreed to direct peering. You will get a much better rate per bit if you're pushing through a lot of traffic, but it's for the same reason that Amazon can mail out 1800 pounds of books through the USPS for just $500 while you as a normal mail user would need to pay around $850 for the same mailing - Amazon is shipping massive amounts of books consistently and also obeys certain pre-mailstream sorting and is thus open to contractual service at a much lower per unit rate, while you're just one guy who is going to ship 1800 pounds of books one time. Again, I don't think any ISPs have ever refused a request to directly peer, except where the party requesting it was not meeting the requirements (e.g. to directly peer with us, you must either put up the connection hardware in a designated exchange area yourself, or pay us to bring access out to a place you're in). It'd be a rare thing indeed for a direct peering agreement to not be to Comcast's advantage, outside of edge cases like the new company somehow deliberately abusing the ISP network.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
The fact that it hasn't happened isn't really that important given that the rules are relatively recent and were in litigation from day one (no one is going to bring an expensive lawsuit when the rules you're relying on to bring it are already being challenged). The possibility is there - at least to a lawyer whose job is to assess risks to the telcos - which is part of why they brought the cases in the first place. (Also, the reasons you're saying Amazon gets better rates are plausibly mapped to similar practices that would be barred as unreasonably discriminatory, because now Amazon is paying less to get the same services as someone else. The word "commercial" not being in there means that commercially reasonable practices can still be considered unreasonable discrimination.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The fact that it hasn't happened isn't really that important given that the rules are relatively recent and were in litigation from day one (no one is going to bring an expensive lawsuit when the rules you're relying on to bring it are already being challenged). What specific rules have recently changed on direct peering? Anyone who would put out such consistent delivery loads while doing as much presorting as Amazon is entitled to the same discounts as Amazon is, but currently that's a rather small universe of eligible users. Similarly, Netflix is presenting an unusually large, asymmetric network load out, and by any reasonable standard would not be expected to have the same pricing structure as smaller load, or more balanced load, or combination of the two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:What specific rules have recently changed on direct peering? The 2010 Open Internet Order. Commonly known as "net neutrality." There's language in there that purports to exclude direct peering from enforcement, but it's not 100% clear how wide that exclusion runs. You're saying "anyone who does what Amazon does gets the same discounts", but that's the point - the language of the rules and comments suggests that actually, that's not okay - everyone needs to get the same discounts. No discrimination. Amazon can't presort to get better access to Comcast's network than someone else who doesn't presort. If litigated, would that argument win? Maybe not, but it's enough of an open question that it could trigger litigation, which is one reason (not the only reason, I would guess, but one reason) that they litigated against the rule as written.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The 2010 Open Internet Order. Commonly known as "net neutrality." There's language in there that purports to exclude direct peering from enforcement, but it's not 100% clear how wide that exclusion runs. There was no regulation on direct peering before that, and none there now, and there was none in the middle though. The FCC themselves considers that things that stay on private networks are not really in their purview except if public network connectivity is being abused to force private connectivity deals instead. This makes no sense from a technological perspective. In order to get good service you or the intermediary you pay to get access for you must provide suitable equipment for a good connection. Additionally, asymmetric network loads always result in a payment relationship while symmetrical loads can grant nearly payment-free relationships due to distribution of burdens. Hell, from the reading you're giving, one might argue that it would be illegal to charge more money per month to residential users who want higher speeds - is that not discrimination and differing discounts? Seriously, if that argument could win, it would justify anyone using any ISP's service demanding the right to pay for the lowest offered tier of service and get equal speeds/etc as the highest offered tier. Edit: Really, just about all communication methods such as this work on an assumption that you can always charge lower per unit rates for more massive amounts of units, due to the fact that there is less and less marginal cost to actually provide the service the higher you go. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Then why did the FCC feel the need to provide a footnote in OIO saying that traditional peering arrangements wouldn't fall within it, but pay-for-play by edge providers would be pretty much per se barred? Are you saying they added those even though they weren't intending to regulate edge provider contracts? The Open Internet Order absolutely had the power to reach peering arrangements, as does the FCC in general. Edit: "A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the broadband Internet access service connection to a subscriber ... would raise significant cause for concern. ... It is unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the "no unreasonable discrimination" standard." That's the FCC's own words on the matter. Kalman fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Then why did the FCC feel the need to provide a footnote in OIO saying that traditional peering arrangements wouldn't fall within it, but pay-for-play by edge providers would be pretty much per se barred? Are you saying they added those even though they weren't intending to regulate edge provider contracts? Edge providers involves not direct peering, it involves services utilizing dedicated equipment for certain providers placed within ISP and other networks. Peering arrangements != direct peering. The FCC's primary interest in peering agreements is those between ISPs, transit providers, and other large networks not unfairly prioritizing certain traffic over others on the public internet and in transitions between networks. Kalman posted:"A commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic in the broadband Internet access service connection to a subscriber ... would raise significant cause for concern. ... It is unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the "no unreasonable discrimination" standard." Which the FCC is not referring to direct peering over, but rather things like generic transit providers and ISPs colluding to downgrade a specific service's traffic while letting others pass unhindered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
"We use 'edge provider' to refer to content, application, service, and device providers because they generally operate at the edge rather than the core of the network." So, yeah, you're wrong on all of that, but hey, I've read the order, so I think I'll go ahead and drop it. (unless you aren't referring to a Netflix-like arrangement by 'direct peering'.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Kalman posted:"We use 'edge provider' to refer to content, application, service, and device providers because they generally operate at the edge rather than the core of the network." By direct peering I am referring to what Netflix is about to do. What Netflix is about to do is to directly hook into the Comcast network from their own hosting at designated private exchange points, rather than transfer over public peering or hosting edge caching within the Comcast network with backup by way of the public peering. Most major high-bandwidth online services already participate in direct peering arrangements and have since the 90s. An "edge provider" proper is simply any service that exists online and is used. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Okay, so we're using the same terms the same way. What I am telling you is that the FCC stated that the Netflix deal is at least suspect if not per se barred under their antidiscrimination rule.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Okay, so we're using the same terms the same way. They said it might be suspect, but they have never called Microsoft's, Facebook's, or Google's into question yet, nor any of the other prior existing ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:They said it might be suspect, but they have never called Microsoft's, Facebook's, or Google's into question yet, nor any of the other prior existing ones. I too love relying on prosecutorial discretion when tens or hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. Which has been my entire point - it's not that these arrangements would for sure have been challenged, or even that they'd have lost. It's that they didn't want to have the risk hanging over their heads. Hence, challenging the regulations. It wasn't some JRPG villain sitting in a room, twirling their mustache and saying "Now I can charge the plebes for every site they want to access!", it was a bunch of boring rear end lawyers like me in a room saying "well, if they decided to change their minds, you'd be at risk of losing, so we maybe ought to challenge the regulations."
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Okay, so we're using the same terms the same way. So based on this interpretation of the ruling, an "edge provider" could never actually sell direct access to their network to anybody that actually sent content to the other customers on that network? Because that is what you are saying, and edge providers include anybody that actually sells internet access to non-ISPs (which is every player that I know of in the business). Contextually in the OIO, it talks about pay for priority - which has a very specific meaning in a network world that does NOT include direct access. It means using quality of service or other mechanisms to either prioritize preferred traffic or degrade "bad" traffic in comparison to the other traffic that is running on the same links on the network. If you build a wholly separate link to a new customer, but treat that traffic the same once it is on the network, you do not run afoul of the OIO per the current common consensus of the ISP community.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
mezoth posted:So based on this interpretation of the ruling, an "edge provider" could never actually sell direct access to their network to anybody that actually sent content to the other customers on that network? Because that is what you are saying, and edge providers include anybody that actually sells internet access to non-ISPs (which is every player that I know of in the business). The ISP community isn't the FCC and wouldn't be enforcing it, and if they think the FCC thought pay for priority couldn't include direct access, they are most certainly wrong. The FCCs interpretation comes uncomfortably close to the "you can't sell direct access" rule you mocked. And yes, real lawyers who deal with telco regulation think that the OIO was absolutely capable of being interpreted as "you can't sell direct access." For example, three judges on the DC Circuit thought that. DC Circuit Decision posted:If the Commission will likely bar broadband providers from charging edge providers for using their service, this forcing them to sell this service to all who ask at a price of $0 ... The example they use? Verizon charging Netflix for high priority access to Verizon's network. It doesn't matter to the court if that data is peered through Level 3 or sent directly via Netflix - in their eyes, if Verizon charged Netflix, it violates the OIO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
Within the last couple of weeks my Netflix has taken a poo poo. I have a 100mbs connection and I decided to do a speedtest while streaming "super hd". I got a 98.9mbs test while Netflix is showing something close to DVD quality, it isn't making a dent in the speed test. Same quality while not running the test. There are just too many variables for me to make any conclusions, but the timing is interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 04:52
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Within the last couple of weeks my Netflix has taken a poo poo. I have a 100mbs connection and I decided to do a speedtest while streaming "super hd". I got a 98.9mbs test while Netflix is showing something close to DVD quality, it isn't making a dent in the speed test. Same quality while not running the test. There are just too many variables for me to make any conclusions, but the timing is interesting. What ISP, and what time of day? Comcast's peering with Netflix directly is expected to start phasing in this month for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:What ISP, and what time of day? Comcast's peering with Netflix directly is expected to start phasing in this month for what it's worth. Charter, and prime time, but I always play at prime time and I haven't had any issues for months as Charter upgraded their pipes. For a while I was getting 200mbs when they were stress testing. edit: Steam will currently max my connection. I got ahold of Netflix tech support and the person seemed ill informed and didn't even know what throttling was. If Netflix is claiming that they aren't getting throttling complaints, how can they get them if their support doesn't know about the possibility? Aeka 2.0 fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
It seems like despite the fact that the FCC rules about Net Neutrality were struck down due to a technicality and not a limitation on how the FCC can regulate ISPs, well, it turns out the FCC didn't want those rules anyway: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html quote:The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Beaten like the Internet will be shortly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
We'll have to we what the new rules actually are. Netflix and all can already negotiate directly, and could even under any proposed net neutrality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:We'll have to we what the new rules actually are. Netflix and all can already negotiate directly, and could even under any proposed net neutrality. From what's leaked so far, it's pretty much what I predicted in the SCOTUS thread - they took the open invitation issued for "commercially reasonable" language and ran with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Open Guantanamo, Closed Internet - An Obama Administration Legacy
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
TroubledWaters posted:Open Guantanamo, Closed Internet - An Obama Administration Legacy -An Idiot Seriously Congress won't allow gitmo to close and Republican appointed judges made this ruling. THANKS OBAMA
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 03:05
|
|