FCC Chairman: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
As predicted, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler announced today that the agency will be invoking its Title II authority to ensure an open internet.

Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public’s great benefit.
Click to expand...
 
The real kick to the balls here is for wireless providers will be TITLE II'D no more will we be nickle and dimed by those fuckwitts
 
congress actually got off their ass and did something !?!?!? and tom wheeler's roots is that of a isp lobbiyst but championing a cause that is actually good for the consumer !?!?!

sounds too good to be true..... i'd caution people to read the fine print especially considering the people are thumbing up this new legislation.

Just because they call it net neutrality, and public utility, doesn't necessarily mean it will truly be all that. The devils in the details :X
 
Moogle Stiltzkin said:
congress actually got off their ass and did something !?!?!? and tom wheeler's roots is that of a isp lobbiyst but championing a cause that is actually good for the consumer !?!?!
Click to expand...

Congress acted in 1996 (telecommunications act of 1996), but only the FCC decided that it didn't apply; they can change their mind and decide it does apply now. Congress could possibly override, if they figure out how to stop taking meaningless waste of time votes, and the courts don't override first.
 
maxius said:
The real kick to the balls here is for wireless providers will be TITLE II'D no more will we be nickle and dimed by those fuckwitts
Click to expand...

Aren't the wireless providers already partially regulated under Title II ... this should impact the cable and fiber providers more I would think ... also, given that price controls would be the nuclear option (and Wall street would react violently to that option) I expect this change to be more about forcing openness in the networks and more competition ... they will likely allow that to manage the pricing but stay out of pricing and fees otherwise
 
Unpopular as they are, ISP's are neither good or evil. The truth is, none of this will fix the perceived woes of the internet. It is just giving a government agency more power over controlling it. It will not reduce the cost and it will not increase the average connections.

In the end, a change like this is something we all will regret. I'd like to be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
 
toast0 said:
Congress acted in 1996 (telecommunications act of 1996), but only the FCC decided that it didn't apply; they can change their mind and decide it does apply now. Congress could possibly override, if they figure out how to stop taking meaningless waste of time votes, and the courts don't override first.
Click to expand...

1.) I doubt the courts would override it, as the majority decision that struck down previous Net Neutrality laws did so only because it WASN'T Title II, and suggested that if they wanted to go down this route, Title II was how to do it. After that, I wouldn't expect the court to change their mind on the subject.

2.) I very much doubt congress will change the law. A bill might make it through the house, but probably not the senate, and definitely would not get signed by the president.

the interesting aspect here is that it doesn't fall along traditional liberal/conservative lines. Typically when you have big business vs. the people in congress, big business always wins due to their lobby, but this is one of those rare cases where the best interest of the people happens to coincide with a large number of big companies, so it winds up being big business vs. big business and the people.

The telecom industry DOES have a very well established lobby though, but I think there is enough dissent within traditional left-right thought that this will not pass. Dems will vote against it, and reps will be split based on which company they are the most loyal to, and in the end it won't pass.

3.) My real concerned is in the details of the proposed Title II rules. I wouldn't be surprised if this amounts to Title II in name only with loop-holes big enough to drive the Governators Hummer through.

After all, I am skeptical that a dingo can become a babysitter overnight...
 
griffinhart said:
Unpopular as they are, ISP's are neither good or evil. The truth is, none of this will fix the perceived woes of the internet. It is just giving a government agency more power over controlling it. It will not reduce the cost and it will not increase the average connections.

In the end, a change like this is something we all will regret. I'd like to be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
Click to expand...


What does being good or evil have to do with anything? They are screwing the customers for profit, and lobbying for legislation to prevent competition. I guess this is just preparation for them to start regulating themselves, because that's what capitalism does right?
 
griffinhart said:
Unpopular as they are, ISP's are neither good or evil. The truth is, none of this will fix the perceived woes of the internet. It is just giving a government agency more power over controlling it. It will not reduce the cost and it will not increase the average connections.

In the end, a change like this is something we all will regret. I'd like to be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
Click to expand...

Cost and average connection speed aren't the only problems with the internet, and I would argue aren't even the most important. Interconnections and how those are managed are right now the biggest problem with the internet. This will give the FCC better ability to regulate that aspect of the internet.
 
griffinhart said:
Unpopular as they are, ISP's are neither good or evil.
Click to expand...

Well, nothing is truly good or evil. The world isn't like Superman.

That being said, the ISP's have been acting on very shaky moral ground by avoiding competing with each other, by carving up their territories like cartels and then abusing their local monopolies to provide inferior service and ridiculous cost.

In many communities the shortsightedness of local towns and cities is to blame as well granting legally protected local monopolies in exchange for guarantees that service will be available in 100% of their neighborhoods, so it can reach everyone.

I don't think they realized the bargain with the devil they were truly getting into though.
 
Erasmus354 said:
Cost and average connection speed aren't the only problems with the internet, and I would argue aren't even the most important. Interconnections and how those are managed are right now the biggest problem with the internet. This will give the FCC better ability to regulate that aspect of the internet.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

While last mile abuses get the most attention online and in the media, where all the real abuses have taken place thus far is at the peering points between networks.

This is how Verizon and Comcast extorted Netflix, not through last mile restrictions.

For any regulation of this type to be effective, ISP's must be required to treat all traffic originating and terminating at IP's internal to their network as belonging to their customers, and as such must be held responsible to increase peering capacity to meet the demands of their own customers, without any expectation of compensation from their network peers.

When I stream a movie from Netflix, from Verizons perspective that should be considered MY traffic, which I ahve paid for by paying for my internet service, not traffic belonging to anyone else, and as such they should be responsible to ME as their customer to expand their peering with whatever Tier1 network (Level 3?) they use.

Lets keep in mind, a peering site has hardware on both ends. Level 3 should be responsible for installing the hardware on their end of the peering connection, to satisfy the needs of their paying customer, Netflix, and Verizon should be responsible for installing the hardware on their end of the peering connection to satisfy their paying customer, ME. There should be no further expectation of compensation from anyone else for either Level 3 or Verizon, regardless of which direction the network traffic travels. That's why it is called peering. An equal connection for the benefit of both sides.
 
Some little tidbits from Title II:

Provided, That communications by wire or radio subject to this Act may be classified into day, night, repeated, unrepeated, letter, commercial, press, Government and such other classes as the Commission may decide to be just and reasonable, and different charges may be made for the different classes of communications
Click to expand...

Looks like there's precedent for classes of service...

"Whenever, after full opportunity for hearing, upon a complaint or under
an order for investigation and hearing made by the Commission on its own
initiative, the Commission shall be of opinion that any charge, classification,
regulation, or practice of any carrier or carriers is or will be in violation of any of
the provisions of this Act, the Commission is authorized and empowered to
determine and prescribe what will be the just and reasonable charge or the
maximum or minimum, or maximum and minimum, charge or charges to be
thereafter observed, and what classification, regulation, or practice is or will be
just, fair, and reasonable, to be thereafter followed, and to make an order that the
carrier or carriers shall cease and desist from such violation to the extent that the
Commission finds that the same does or will exist, and shall not thereafter publish,
demand, or collect any charge other than the charge so prescribed, or in excess of
the maximum or less than the minimum so prescribed, as the case may be, and shall
adopt the classification and shall conform to and observe the regulation or practice
so prescribed.
Click to expand...

So the government will now set prices and methods. I see this working out well.

(b) Nothing in this Act or in any other provision of law shall be construed
to prohibit common carriers from rendering to any agency of the Government free
service in connection with the preparation for the national defense: Provided, That
such free service may be rendered only in accordance with such rules and
regulations as the Commission may prescribe therefor.
Click to expand...

Okay, so everyone has to be the same, except Uncle Sugar can get his without paying.

(b) The Commission may at any time require any such carrier to file with
the Commission an inventory of all or of any part of the property owned or used
by said carrier, which inventory shall show the units of said property classified in
such detail, and in such manner, as the Commission shall direct, and shall show the
estimated cost of reproduction new of said units, and their reproduction cost new
less depreciation, as of such date as the Commission may direct; and such carrier
shall file such inventory within such reasonable time as the Commission by order
shall require.
Click to expand...

Okay, so now everyone has to maintain an inventory of everything and turn it over to the government upon request. Of course this will be subject to FOIA requests. Seems legit.

(a) No carrier shall undertake the construction of a new line or of an
extension of any line, or shall acquire or operate any line, or extension thereof, or
shall engage in transmission over or by means of such additional or extended line,
unless and until there shall first have been obtained from the Commission a
certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or
will require the construction, or operation, or construction and operation, of such
additional or extended line
Click to expand...

Oh dear.... This will *surely* speed up construction of all those new lines, right? Well this one gets even better. There's some caveats for lines within a single state or under 10 miles in length, but if it crosses sate lines then we get:

(b) Upon receipt of an application for any such certificate, the Commission
shall cause notice thereof to be given to, and shall cause a copy of such application
to be filed with, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State (with respect to
such applications involving service to foreign points), and the Governor of each
State in which such line is proposed to be constructed, extended, acquired, or
operated, or in which such discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service is
proposed, with the right to those notified to be heard; and the Commission may
require such published notice as it shall determine.
Click to expand...

The Secretary of Defense will now be notified of all new lines. Awesome!!!!!!

(3) DESIGNATION OF ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS FOR UNSERVED AREAS.--If no common carrier will provide the services that
are supported by Federal universal service support mechanisms under
section 254(c) to an unserved community or any portion thereof that
requests such service, the Commission, with respect to interstate services,
or a State commission, with respect to intrastate services, shall determine
which common carrier or carriers are best able to provide such service to
the requesting unserved community or portion thereof and shall order such
carrier or carriers to provide such service for that unserved community or
portion thereof. Any carrier or carriers ordered to provide such service
under this paragraph shall meet the requirements of paragraph (1) and shall
be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier for that community
or portion thereof.
Click to expand...

Awesome, now the government can order companies to install lines! That sounds great, but how will they be paying for that? Oh yeah, the USP. So taxpayer money.

(1) ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS.--A common carrier
designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier under paragraph (2) or
(3) shall be eligible to receive universal service support in accordance with
section 254 and shall, throughout the service area for which the designation
is received--
(A) offer the services that are supported by Federal
universal service support mechanisms under section 254(c), either
using its own facilities or a combination of its own facilities and
resale of another carrier's services (including the services offered by
another eligible telecommunications carrier); and
(B) advertise the availability of such services and the
charges therefor using media of general distribution.
Click to expand...

Yep, sweet sweet taxpayer money, ponied up by you on every bill.

This is just the beginning of it. I'd encourage all of you to read the whole thing.

All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.
Click to expand...

Wheeler's statement indicates that he thinks he can just pick and choose which parts of the Act the FCC will follow, but the plain fact of the matter is that the law is the law and any subsequent FCC head can now choose on a whim to follow any, all, or none of it.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041405825 said:
Agreed.

While last mile abuses get the most attention online and in the media, where all the real abuses have taken place thus far is at the peering points between networks.

This is how Verizon and Comcast extorted Netflix, not through last mile restrictions.

For any regulation of this type to be effective, ISP's must be required to treat all traffic originating and terminating at IP's internal to their network as belonging to their customers, and as such must be held responsible to increase peering capacity to meet the demands of their own customers, without any expectation of compensation from their network peers.

When I stream a movie from Netflix, from Verizons perspective that should be considered MY traffic, which I ahve paid for by paying for my internet service, not traffic belonging to anyone else, and as such they should be responsible to ME as their customer to expand their peering with whatever Tier1 network (Level 3?) they use.

Lets keep in mind, a peering site has hardware on both ends. Level 3 should be responsible for installing the hardware on their end of the peering connection, to satisfy the needs of their paying customer, Netflix, and Verizon should be responsible for installing the hardware on their end of the peering connection to satisfy their paying customer, ME. There should be no further expectation of compensation from anyone else for either Level 3 or Verizon, regardless of which direction the network traffic travels. That's why it is called peering. An equal connection for the benefit of both sides.
Click to expand...

It's not circuit switched, sorry. No symmetrical bidirectional nailed up connections with dedicated resources for you.

And I'm sure glad you get to tell other people how to spend their money so you can stream your Netflix! You know the packets can traverse third-party networks, right?
 
flashoverride said:
So the government will now set prices and methods. I see this working out well.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? These portions of Title II are specifically excluded.


Tom Wheeler said:
To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.
Click to expand...

Details are light, but essentially he suggests internet service will be regulated similarly to the special subset of Title II that applies to Wireless service. This is a "modernized" subset of the full Title II classification, which excludes a lot of the archaic stuff, but retains the portions that are still relevant.

Again, the devil is in the details, as to how effective this will be, but thus far nothing I have seen outright rules out that it will be good regulation. On the flip side there are just too many details we still don't know.
 
flashoverride said:
It's not circuit switched, sorry. No symmetrical bidirectional nailed up connections with dedicated resources for you.
Click to expand...

No, I do not claim to have a full understanding of what a peering site looks like, or exactly how it works, but if we completely oversimplify it it still mostly makes sense.

The completely oversimplified version is this:
There is a switch on Verizons side and there is a switch on Level 3's side. When the bandwidth is insufficient both sides have to upgrade their hardware, and possibly new cabling goes between them.

Each network is responsible for the hardware on their own sides. They can share the cost of the cable.

/complete oversimplification

flashoverride said:
And I'm sure glad you get to tell other people how to spend their money so you can stream your Netflix!
Click to expand...

Netflix is just an example. I barely even use mine. It's just a very good one, as abuses here have already happened.

I am paying Verizon for Internet service. As such they must provide me with Internet service, including the whole internet at acceptable speeds, not some subset, at least up to the borders of their network. Whats on the other side of those borders is out of their control, but they should not be allowed to skimp on connections up to and including those borders, as that is what I am paying them for.

What part of this is difficult to understand?

If peering is a bottleneck for my service, they should be contractually bound to me - who is subscribing to their service - to fix their end of it that peer, without any compensation from the other end of the peer.

flashoverride said:
You know the packets can traverse third-party networks, right?
Click to expand...

That's why I specified traffic originating from or terminating at IP's within their network.

Reading comprehension much?

Obviously some sort of "for pay" arrangement would be fair and justified when it comes to traffic passing through their network.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041405881 said:
The completely oversimplified version is this:
There is a switch on Verizons side and there is a switch on Level 3's side. When the bandwidth is insufficient both sides have to upgrade their hardware, and possibly new cabling goes between them.

Each network is responsible for the hardware on their own sides. They can share the cost of the cable.

/complete oversimplification
Click to expand...

Essentially this:

LGEtkj6l.jpg


and this:

g8jmCKYl.jpg


Which pretty much proves that it was Verizon's intentional limitation of their LA Border router that was the cause of the Netflix problem up until Netflix paid their ransom.

source
 
Imho the FCC's really missing the boat if they're not gonna go for last mile unbundling. If we're stuck with one provider then where's the competition gonna come from? I guess from a second, third and fourth line, not the most efficient solution.
 
Wierdo said:
Imho the FCC's really missing the boat if they're not gonna go for last mile unbundling. If we're stuck with one provider then where's the competition gonna come from? I guess from a second, third and fourth line, not the most efficient solution.
Click to expand...

I would agree, that would be more efficient, but it would also be A LOT more controversial, as ISP's ahve already spent a ton of money on running last mile cabling/fiber.

At least they typically share the poles (though I wish they'd put that shit under ground instead.

There are also technical differences between their implementations that could cause issues.

If we want true net neutrality (which I am not yet convinced this will result in, as we have sparse details) it would probably be in our interest to do anything that even remotely could be misconstrued as "the government seizing property from private organization", as it would lead to a congressional shit storm, with the lunatic teabilly representatives we have there.
 
heatlesssun said:
Name one major ISP people are happier with. Perhaps it is only the better of two evils.
Click to expand...

Because you 'think' screws are being put to the ISP's? For the short time that might actually be true (maybe 12-18 months) decisions should be based on results.


How about renew the anti-trust hammer and jumpstart some actual competition.
 
jpm100 said:
Because you 'think' screws are being put to the ISP's? For the short time that might actually be true (maybe 12-18 months) decisions should be based on results.


How about renew the anti-trust hammer and jumpstart some actual competition.
Click to expand...

Would love it if that happened, breaking each major ISP into at least two per state. I don't know if it's politically realistic but that sure would shake things up.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041405881 said:
No, I do not claim to have a full understanding of what a peering site looks like, or exactly how it works, but if we completely oversimplify it it still mostly makes sense.

The completely oversimplified version is this:
There is a switch on Verizons side and there is a switch on Level 3's side. When the bandwidth is insufficient both sides have to upgrade their hardware, and possibly new cabling goes between them.

Each network is responsible for the hardware on their own sides. They can share the cost of the cable.

/complete oversimplification
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm glad you acknowledge it as such. I want you to go and run some traceroutes and get back to us on how many networks you traverse - you might be surprised. Also, remember that the only networks that show up on a traceroute are points where layer 3 routing is occurring - you wouldn't see any layer 1 transport here. Due to regional monopolies, it's actually more often than not that these circuits are being run by a different provider.

[QUOTE='Zarathustra[H]] Netflix is just an example. I barely even use mine. It's just a very good one, as abuses here have already happened.

I am paying Verizon for Internet service. As such they must provide me with Internet service, including the whole internet at acceptable speeds, not some subset, at least up to the borders of their network. Whats on the other side of those borders is out of their control, but they should not be allowed to skimp on connections up to and including those borders, as that is what I am paying them for.

What part of this is difficult to understand?[/QUOTE]

Except by and large they weren't abuses, and Netflix finally got around to doing what they should have done to begin with - coincidentally, what they were paying Akamai to do before they cut costs - and started building their own CDN closer to the network edge. They went with Level 3 and Cogent because both of those tier 1 ISPs tried to act as CDNs and abuse their settlement-free peering status. Whereas Akamai had to incur the cost of transport but had much better distribution at the network edge, both Cogent and Level 3 figured they could just dump traffic in the backbone for free because they were tier 1 and everyone else should just take it. When you start dumping 40% of the packet traffic in the backbone at peak times - yeah, the other providers are going to complain.

[QUOTE='Zarathustra[H]] If peering is a bottleneck for my service, they should be contractually bound to me - who is subscribing to their service - to fix their end of it that peer, without any compensation from the other end of the peer.[/QUOTE]

Why would that make any sense? I could see advocating cost-sharing, but in the cases you are describing, the balance of traffic is almost completely one sided, and the traffic ratio is all screwed up.

[QUOTE='Zarathustra[H]] That's why I specified traffic originating from or terminating at IP's within their network.

Reading comprehension much?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, so Netflix has one Service provider, and if you're not on that service provider or a service provider that's directly connected - which is probably the case - then I really am not sure how you expect either end to be held responsible. If you're on Comcast, then your interconnections to Level 3 are probably going through whatever regional ISP serves the area, be it CenturyLink, ATT, VZN, or Sprint. Comcast is a multi-homed tier 2 ISP.

[QUOTE='Zarathustra[H] Obviously some sort of "for pay" arrangement would be fair and justified when it comes to traffic passing through their network.[/QUOTE]

Except that's not what settlement-free peering is all about, and that's what forms the backbone of the internet.

Look, you seem like you have some level of desire to understand this. Great! Go to http://drpeering.net/index.php and read up. It's a great site and will really help you to understand why this is such a complex topic, and letting a bunch of bureaucrats run it is a terrible idea.
 
jpm100 said:
Because you 'think' screws are being put to the ISP's? For the short time that might actually be true (maybe 12-18 months) decisions should be based on results.


How about renew the anti-trust hammer and jumpstart some actual competition.
Click to expand...
The US hasn't dealt with any real anti-trust breaking since the 80's we bent over and took the position just because there is no competition doesn't mean the company is suppressing competition so no need to break it up.
 
flashoverride said:
Why would that make any sense? I could see advocating cost-sharing, but in the cases you are describing, the balance of traffic is almost completely one sided, and the traffic ratio is all screwed up.
Click to expand...

That traffic wouldn't exist without a customer requesting it, and the ISP is in business because of that customer, if they wish to not be in business then by all means, the only problem is that they're the only game in town usually so they can get away with this BS.

This Netflix issue is not a problem anywhere else in the civilized world, who's making it a problem on this side of the pond?
 
jpm100 said:
Name one title II industry people are happy with?
Click to expand...

While the mobile data companies themselves aren't too popular, look how popular the industries are providing devices that are accessible due to Title II. Smartphones, etc, have taken off, as have data speeds, all under Title II.

It's not the best solution, but it's a better solution than we have today. Definitely in support of this move.
 
Does this address anything related to service agreements between ISPs and towns?
 
Wierdo said:
That traffic wouldn't exist without a customer requesting it, and the ISP is in business because of that customer, if they wish to not be in business then by all means, the only problem is that they're the only game in town usually so they can get away with this BS.

This Netflix issue is not a problem anywhere else in the civilized world, who's making it a problem on this side of the pond?
Click to expand...

Okay, so let me explain.

You're a Comcast customer. XYZ Corp is a TWC customer. You request resources from XYZ Corp. Those packets traverse Comcast's network until they exit via a Verizon interconnect, and then are passed on to TWC via another interconnect.

What responsibility does Verizon have to you or to XYZ Corp? Neither one of you are direct customers.

Let's get even weirder - let's say there actually two or three interconnects there. Who's at fault if the packet latency increases or the packet drops? You're mad at Comcast, XYZ is mad at TWC, but ultimately that packet could have failed outside of either of those provider networks.
 
TwistedAegis said:
While the mobile data companies themselves aren't too popular, look how popular the industries are providing devices that are accessible due to Title II. Smartphones, etc, have taken off, as have data speeds, all under Title II.

It's not the best solution, but it's a better solution than we have today. Definitely in support of this move.
Click to expand...

What? Title II hasn't applied to wireless mobile networks. How do you figure Title II made mobile smartphone devices available? I'm genuinely curious.
 
flashoverride said:
Why would that make any sense? I could see advocating cost-sharing, but in the cases you are describing, the balance of traffic is almost completely one sided, and the traffic ratio is all screwed up.
Click to expand...

I think this right here is the fundamental basis of our disagreement.

I don't consider it "one sided" at all. It shouldn't make a difference which direction the traffic is traveling.

Any packet coming from Netflix to my IP, or from my IP to Netflix belongs just as much to me just as much as it does to Netflix, and as such this packet is just as much Level3's responsibility as it is Verizon's.

Otherwise, why not flip it the other way around? Level 3 could blame Verizon for the traffic and try to charge them for it. After all all the requests are coming from Verizon clients... Then Level 3 could start choking the interconnect until Verizon compensates them, cutting off Verizon's customers from a very popular service and pissing them off and prompting them to change.... but wait, they can't, because ISP's have divided up the turf like cartels and operate monopolies.

So essentially what this comes down to is Verizon using their monopoly access to the end user to sabotage the equal 50-50 peering agreement, because if the customers go away, it hurts Netflix more than it does Verizon. Classic monopolistic abuse.

Verizon's (and your) claim that the traffic belongs to Level 3 and they should pay is completely arbitrary and dumb. It takes two to tango. The traffic is equally caused by both parties. You need both a streamer and a streamee to generate traffic.

Thus it would be only fair if Level3 and Verizon share the cost of the peering interconnect upgrades equally.

The most fair way to do this? Level 3 is responsible for the edge routers on their side and all the costs, and upgrades (if necessary) involved with that, and Verizon is responsible for the edge routers on their side, and all the costs, and upgrades (if necessary) involved with that.

g8jmCKYl.jpg


Level 3 shouldn't have to compensate Verizon. They are already taking care of their side of the bargain by upgrading their own edge routers.

The only part they would need to share are the 10GBE cables, which while I know are not cheap - are a drop in the bucket from a large network perspective.

There it is. True peering with each side sharing 50-50 in the cost of maintaining the peering relationship, just as it should be.

Now, would you care to tell me which part of this you feel is wrong, and why you arbitrarily assign a packet traveling between two IP addresses to one of the addresses and not to the other?

All traffic between two points should be shared by said two points, regardless of its direction.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041405963 said:
I would agree, that would be more efficient, but it would also be A LOT more controversial, as ISP's ahve already spent a ton of money on running last mile cabling/fiber.

At least they typically share the poles (though I wish they'd put that shit under ground instead.

There are also technical differences between their implementations that could cause issues.

If we want true net neutrality (which I am not yet convinced this will result in, as we have sparse details) it would probably be in our interest to do anything that even remotely could be misconstrued as "the government seizing property from private organization", as it would lead to a congressional shit storm, with the lunatic teabilly representatives we have there.
Click to expand...


I agree with everything you said (seriously, your previous posts were absolutely spot on), but this. There were HUGE tax incentives for them to roll out the infrastructure. So the tax payers funded the rollout, yet the corporations kept control and refuse to lease (at least for a reasonable rate) to competition. They absolutely should take control, then lease them to any ISP that wants to use them (including the big corporations).
 
Biznatch said:
I agree with everything you said (seriously, your previous posts were absolutely spot on), but this. There were HUGE tax incentives for them to roll out the infrastructure. So the tax payers funded the rollout, yet the corporations kept control and refuse to lease (at least for a reasonable rate) to competition. They absolutely should take control, then lease them to any ISP that wants to use them (including the big corporations).
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with this too.

Since it was paid for by government subsidies, I would not have a moral objection to this approach (in fact I would prefer it) but I think we have to be political about it unfortunately.

Right now congress is divided. Even though this would make perfect sense from a "government paid for the rollout, and thus government is forcing you to share it with your competitors) you just know that the nutjobs in congress would spin it as communism and the nationalizing of private infrastructure, and then all rally around it like the next obamacare, potentially passing something that ends the FCC's efforts to enforce net neutrality in its tracks.

Obama likely wouldn't likely sign this on it's own, but what if they held the economy hostage and bundled it with a continuing resolution to fund the government?

That, and Obama won't be president forever.

So, while I agree with you from an ideal, and what is right perspective, I just think from a practical perspective it may be better to not poke the sleeping mad cow that is congress.
 
Wierdo said:
That traffic wouldn't exist without a customer requesting it, and the ISP is in business because of that customer, if they wish to not be in business then by all means, the only problem is that they're the only game in town usually so they can get away with this BS.

This Netflix issue is not a problem anywhere else in the civilized world, who's making it a problem on this side of the pond?
Click to expand...


Exactly, they are providing INTERnet service, not INTRAnet service, which by definition means access to other networks besides their own. If they can't handle that, then they aren't providing the service they are selling. If their connection to the peer is utilizing 100% of that connection on their end, they need to upgrade their infrastructure. If it's not 100%, then the issue is with the peer and that's the responsibility of the service provider responding to the requests.

And lets not forget they are moving fucking electricity/light over a wire..... The costs to upgrade bandwidth between 2 points is nothing compared to what would be required for physical items like water/mail. It's a 1 time fee for the equipment for the upgrade (or literally just plugging in another connection..). So this is nothing but ISPs trying to find a way to make extra money for a service they have already been paid for.
 
flashoverride said:
Okay, so let me explain.

You're a Comcast customer. XYZ Corp is a TWC customer. You request resources from XYZ Corp. Those packets traverse Comcast's network until they exit via a Verizon interconnect, and then are passed on to TWC via another interconnect.

What responsibility does Verizon have to you or to XYZ Corp? Neither one of you are direct customers.

Let's get even weirder - let's say there actually two or three interconnects there. Who's at fault if the packet latency increases or the packet drops? You're mad at Comcast, XYZ is mad at TWC, but ultimately that packet could have failed outside of either of those provider networks.
Click to expand...

I agree, what responsibility does Verizon have toward those entities? They don't care about the opennes of internet if it's not in their interest, their interest is in the bottom line, that's a major conflict of interest for a healthy free market in this sector.

(The same goes for Comcast and TWC etc)

Imho that description is a strong argument in favor of the FCC stepping in and doing their job: Making sure Verizon's interests don't override the need for the rest of the internet community/industry to grow and stay competitive on a fast evolving world stage.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041406075 said:
I think this right here is the fundamental basis of our disagreement.

I don't consider it "one sided" at all. It shouldn't make a difference which direction the traffic is traveling.
Click to expand...

What? That is the entire historical basis for peering and transit agreements.

Zarathustra[H];1041406075 said:
Any packet coming from Netflix to my IP, or from my IP to Netflix belongs just as much to me just as much as it does to Netflix, and as such this packet is just as much Level3's responsibility as it is Verizon's.
Click to expand...

What? Again, this is not a circuit switched network. This is a packet switched network. IP is a connection-less, best effort protocol.

Zarathustra[H];1041406075 said:
Otherwise, why not flip it the other way around? Level 3 could blame Verizon for the traffic and try to charge them for it. After all all the requests are coming from Verizon clients... Then Level 3 could start choking the interconnect until Verizon compensates them, cutting off Verizon's customers from a very popular service and pissing them off and prompting them to change.... but wait, they can't, because ISP's have divided up the turf like cartels and operate monopolies.
Click to expand...

What? EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CAN AND HAS BEEN DONE, BY LEVEL 3 THEMSELVES.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ering-and-cogent-communications-55014572.html

Tier 1 ISPs didn't "carve up" the Internet, they BUILT it.

Zarathustra[H];1041406075 said:
So essentially what this comes down to is Verizon using their monopoly access to the end user to sabotage the equal 50-50 peering agreement, because if the customers go away, it hurts Netflix more than it does Verizon. Classic monopolistic abuse.

Verizon's (and your) claim that the traffic belongs to Level 3 and they should pay is completely arbitrary and dumb. It takes two to tango. The traffic is equally caused by both parties. You need both a streamer and a streamee to generate traffic.

Thus it would be only fair if Level3 and Verizon share the cost of the peering interconnect upgrades equally.
Click to expand...

Your basic premise is that we should share costs 50/50 even if I demand 80% of the bandwidth to your 20%. Tell you what, I'll give you 50% of your paycheck if you do 80% of the work, how's that sound?


Zarathustra[H];1041406075 said:
The most fair way to do this? Level 3 is responsible for the edge routers on their side and all the costs, and upgrades (if necessary) involved with that, and Verizon is responsible for the edge routers on their side, and all the costs, and upgrades (if necessary) involved with that.

Level 3 shouldn't have to compensate Verizon. They are already taking care of their side of the bargain by upgrading their own edge routers.
Click to expand...

Except they didn't. So, there's that.

Zarathustra[H];1041406075 said:
The only part they would need to share are the 10GBE cables, which while I know are not cheap - are a drop in the bucket from a large network perspective.

There it is. True peering with each side sharing 50-50 in the cost of maintaining the peering relationship, just as it should be.

Now, would you care to tell me which part of this you feel is wrong, and why you arbitrarily assign a packet traveling between two IP addresses to one of the addresses and not to the other?
Click to expand...

Yes, it originates at one side and not the other. It's right there in the packet header. Are you serious? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4

Zarathustra[H];1041406075 said:
All traffic between two points should be shared by said two points, regardless of its direction.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll say this one more time. The Internet is not a full-mesh network where every provider has a direct connection with every other provider. You clearly did not take the time to go and read up on the history of transit and peering agreements. Packets can and will take multiple routes through multiple third-party networks to reach their destinations.
 
flashoverride said:
Okay, so let me explain.

You're a Comcast customer. XYZ Corp is a TWC customer. You request resources from XYZ Corp. Those packets traverse Comcast's network until they exit via a Verizon interconnect, and then are passed on to TWC via another interconnect.

What responsibility does Verizon have to you or to XYZ Corp? Neither one of you are direct customers.

Let's get even weirder - let's say there actually two or three interconnects there. Who's at fault if the packet latency increases or the packet drops? You're mad at Comcast, XYZ is mad at TWC, but ultimately that packet could have failed outside of either of those provider networks.
Click to expand...


That's the nature of the internet/routing... If a route is down, it finds another to reach it's destination. If it wasn't self healing it would be useless. Routers don't/shouldn't care who owns the network in the next hop, they just get the data from the source to the destination. Now ISPs are getting in the way crying that they are getting more data from 1 router than they are sending. That's fucking stupid and is not how the internet was designed, and should be part of the net neutrality. What happens if they start blocking (or throttling to the point of being useless) traffic from a specific router, to force over another route that they can charge more for?

Peering agreements are a useless money grab, and should be done away with. ISPs should be responsible for charging their clients the appropriate amount for data sent or received by their clients, and that's it.
 
Wierdo said:
I agree, what responsibility does Verizon have toward those entities? They don't care about the opennes of internet if it's not in their interest, their interest is in the bottom line, that's a major conflict of interest for a healthy free market in this sector.

(The same goes for Comcast and TWC etc)

Imho that description is a strong argument in favor of the FCC stepping in and doing their job: Making sure Verizon's interests don't override the need for the rest of the internet community/industry to grow and stay competitive on a fast evolving world stage.
Click to expand...

They care about transit because that's how they make money. The more bandwidth you use, the more they can bill your provider, the more money they make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top