Every time Scrym say "Lox" I can't help but translate it in my head to "Liquid Oxygen". Confusion was caused when Rym noted smelling Lox, and then Scott had Lox on his bagel.
The only problem I forsee in paying by the gigabit, is that the service is coming from companies that'll make you basically pay up front for a set amount of bandwidth each month and make you pay out the nose for anything over that. They sure as hell would probably like to keep that model, which makes them mad bank and thus will probably not want to say "Okay it's a penny for a gigabit and we'll meter you and send you a bill for how much you use."
There's a lot of hub bub going on lately because of the conflict between Level 3 and Comcast. Basically, Level 3 got a contract with Netflix. So Netflix pays Level 3 money to send out the streaming video. Comcast and Level 3 had a peering agreement, so that would route traffic over each other's networks. Because Level 3 has Netflix, too much traffic was coming into Comcast from Level 3, so they cut them off and want them to pay more money. Basically Comcast wants to charge on both ends, they want money from Netflix and also from the Comcast customers.
This gave me an idea. What if we let them have what they want. They can charge Netflix in proportion to the bandwidth that Netflix uses. However, let's turn the tables around. All residential people just get free Internets.
This gave me an idea. What if we let them have what they want. They can charge Netflix in proportion to the bandwidth that Netflix uses. However, let's turn the tables around. All residential people just get free Internets.
That'd be like Tony Hsieh knocking on my door right now and handing me a check for $100,000. it'd be nice, but it's not gonna happen.
There's a lot of hub bub going on lately because of the conflict between Level 3 and Comcast. Basically, Level 3 got a contract with Netflix. So Netflix pays Level 3 money to send out the streaming video. Comcast and Level 3 had a peering agreement, so that would route traffic over each other's networks. Because Level 3 has Netflix, too much traffic was coming into Comcast from Level 3, so they cut them off and want them to pay more money. Basically Comcast wants to charge on both ends, they want money from Netflix and also from the Comcast customers.
This gave me an idea. What if we let them have what they want. They can charge Netflix in proportion to the bandwidth that Netflix uses. However, let's turn the tables around. All residential people just get free Internets.
Ever wonder what Comcast's connections to the Internet look like? In the tradition of WikiLeaks, someone stumbled upon these graphs of their TATA links. For reference, TATA is the only other IP transit provider to Comcast after Level (3). Comcast is a customer of TATA and pays them to provide them with access to the Internet.
Notice how those graphs flat-line at the top? That's because they're completely full for most of the day. If you were a Comcast customer attempting to stream Netflix via this connection, the movie would be completely unwatchable. This is how Comcast operates: They intentionally run their IP transit links so full that Content Providers have no other choice but to pay them (Comcast) for access. If you don't pay Comcast, your bits wont make it to their destination. Though they wont openly say that to anyone, the content providers who attempt to push bits towards their customers know it. Comcast customers however have no idea that they're being held hostage in order to extort money from content.
Another thing to notice is the ratio of inbound versus outbound. Since Comcast is primarily a broadband access network provider, they're going to have millions of eyeballs (users) downloading content. Comcast claims that a good network maintains a 1:1 with them, but that's simply not possible unless you had Comcast and another broadband access network talking to each other. In the attached graphs you can see the ratio is more along the lines of 5:1, which Comcast was complaining about with Level (3). The reality is that the ratio argument is bogus. Broadband access networks are naturally pull-heavy and it's being used as an excuse to call foul of Level (3) and other content heavy networks. But this shoulnd't surprise anyone, the ratio argument has been used for over a decade by many of the large telephone companies as an excuse to deny peering requests. Guess where most of Comcasts senior network executive people came from? Sprint and AT&T.; Welcome to the new monopoly of the 21st century.
If you think the above graph is just a bad day or maybe a one off? Let us look at a 30 day graph...
Comcast needs to be truthful with its customers, regulators and the public in general. The Level (3) incident only highlights the fact that Comcast is pinching content and backbone providers to force them to pay for uncongested access to Comcast customers. Otherwise, there's no way to send traffic to Comcast customers via the other paths on the Internet without hitting congested links.
Remember that this is not TATA's fault, Comcast is a CUSTOMER of TATA. TATA cannot force Comcast to upgrade its links, Comcast elects to simply not purchase enough capacity and lets them run full. When Comcast demanded that Level (3) pay them, the only choice Level (3) had was to give in or have its traffic (such as Netflix) routed via the congested TATA links. If Level (3) didn't agree to pay, that means Netflix and large portions of the Internet to browse would be simply unusable for the majority of the day for Comcast subscribers.
Love,
Backdoor Santa
TL;DR Comcast is purposefully not purchasing enough internet bandwidth to force companies like Level (3) to enter peering contracts to get their content through.
Just a note, I've been reading more articles by republicans and Teabaggers talking about how the government wants to regulate the internet. This is pretty much their counter punch to destroy Net Neutrality. People don't realize that the point is to make sure the ISP's don't regulate the internet. I recommend you go and make sure people around you understand what the stakes are because I see public thought moving farther away from Net Neutrality. Mainly because I don't see people getting up and explaining the problem. For example this is a anti-Net Neutrality argument that well.. sounds like a pro-Net neutrality argument until you see what he is saying.
but by all means keep being distracted by ponies :-p
Comments
This gave me an idea. What if we let them have what they want. They can charge Netflix in proportion to the bandwidth that Netflix uses. However, let's turn the tables around. All residential people just get free Internets.
but by all means keep being distracted by ponies :-p