RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

[Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert () stargate ca>]

> ...but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast...

Which, from the outside, does appear to have been the case.

> ...then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO 
> the Comcast network.

Which I don't believe was a problem?  Again, outside looking in, but the appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast 
was refusing to upgrade capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was doing the same.  So:
> I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.


> The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they be 
> free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and the 
> price doesn't basically amount to extortion.

Are we talking here about transport between Netflix's POPs and Comcast's?  I definitely don't expect Comcast to foot 
the bill for transport between the two, and if Netflix was asking for that I'm with you that would be out of line.  If 
there are existing exchange points, though, would it not be reasonable to expect each side to up their capacity at 
those points?


> Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no 
> double billing.

The "double-dip" reference was to charging both the content provider and the ISP's own customer to deliver the same 
bits.  If the traffic from Netflix was via Netflix's transit provider and Comcast then again was looking to bill 
Netflix to accept the traffic, we'd hit double billing.

I guess that's the question here:  If additional transport directly been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody 
has to pay for the links.  Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering was happening at IXs (haven't 
checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem reasonable for each party to handle their own capacity to the 
peering points and call it even.  No?

--
Hugo

________________________________
From: Rick Astley <jnanog () gmail com>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:23 PM
To: Hugo Slabbert
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

> How is this *not* Comcast's problem?  If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my 
> responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that?  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add ports on my 
> side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.  Am I missing something?

Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that point of congestion is the links between 
Netflix and Comcast then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data at 
least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to 
their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its 
a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I couldn't 
tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must 
be free. Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is 
no double billing.

This diagram best describes the relationship (ignoring pricing): 
http://www.digitalsociety.org/files/gou/free-and-paid-peering.png

"Content provider" would be Netflix and Comcast would be Broadband ISP 1.




On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert () stargate ca<mailto:hslabbert () stargate ca>> wrote:
Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if I'm wrong in finding this article a 
crock of crap.  With Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's 
obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway...

> A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thought
> to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network
> providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry yours
> and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under
> modern realities.

I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had "collapsed".  Not saying it's the "only way", but "she ain't dead yet".

Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes settlement-free peering viable:
"The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was sending to the other was roughly equivalent."

...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix needs to buck up:
"Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge amounts of bandwidth they require in order to 
reach their customers with sufficient quality."

But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge network in this context and Netflix as a content 
provider sending to Comcast users the traffic that they requested.  Is there really anything more nuanced here than:

1.  Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network according to an oversubscription ratio 
they're happy with.  (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life).
2.  Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market.
3.  Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck in more data than Comcast was betting 
on.
4.  Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in 
order to satisfy their customers' usage.

How is this *not* Comcast's problem?  If my users are requesting more traffic than I banked on, how is it not my 
responsibility to ensure I have capacity to handle that?  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add ports on my 
side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.  Am I missing something?

Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent & shift towards double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in 
the bastardized "Open Internet" rules don't help on that front.  Now, Comcast is free to leverage their customers as 
bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing 
seems fitting here.  Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point.  Considering the lack of broadband options 
for large parts of the US, though, it seems that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real 
recourse while that plays out.

--
Hugo

________________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces () nanog org<mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org>> on behalf of Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon () 
cox net<mailto:LarrySheldon () cox net>>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM
To: nanog () nanog org<mailto:nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian

FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality

http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/

Forward!  On to the next windmill, Sancho!
--
Requiescas in pace o email           Two identifying characteristics
                                         of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio      Infallibility, and the ability to
                                         learn from their mistakes.
                                           (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)