Comment Re:Private Links != Paid Priority (Score 1) 258
No, it's called one side abusing it's peer link.
No, it's called one side abusing it's peer link.
Perhaps they originate traffic for certain user agents or devices on different subnets that are associated with different peers.
Agreed, and that's the worst thing about this - that I have to side with Comcast and support their position.
If the traffic was heavily tilted from Cogent to Comcast, it's not Comcast's responsibility to upgrade without charging more. If they demand paid transit, people will still complain about toll roads and "paid priority" while Comcast has to babysit the two connections and deal with billing disputes based on what amounts to overflow charges.
Perhaps Netflix wore out their welcome and Comcast no longer wanted to give them special treatment or allow anything beyond paid transit or eating the bottlenecks.
If they moved the traffic to paid transit, we'd hear the same things about toll roads and priority and everything else.
Netflix can't get away with the modern day "babe in the woods" game. They knew exactly what they were doing when they selected their transit provider.
Why should ISP/last mile providers have to absorb or pass along the costs of upgrading their networks to satisfy the demands of the paying customer of another ISP?
Essentially all customers at ISPs must subsidize the desires of the customers who like to access streaming providers.
Netflix and others who operate like this are the bad guys and they full well know it.
Why should all customers of an ISP pay so that some users can have a better experience?
If Netflix (and other content providers) wants this kind of access to an ISPs customers, they can do the responsible thing and pay for transit directly from them.
Yes, it's Comcast's fault that their peer was sending massive amounts of traffic in their direction in what is usually viewed as an abuse of unpaid peering links.
How do you propose they manage those bottlenecks? Throttling?
They're also free to throttle traffic that causes the peering connection to become imbalanced and/or just watch as their peer irresponsibly saturates the link.
Why should they have to keep paying to upgrade so that the paying customer of another ISP can have a better experience?
Maybe they were tired of dealing with an unreasonable company and didn't want to extend special treatment to them.
Of course it would, if the link is saturated, all traffic would be affected. The alternative would be throttling a specfic set of sources, and we know how upset that would have made everyone here.
Why should Comcast have to pay to upgrade so that even more traffic from a paying customer of another ISP can traverse their network?
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr