There's never been any such exceptions to peering arrangements before. End of story. You think the way the internet has always worked should change, but don't want to admit it.
Consider it the other way around. Level-3 certainly wouldn't be jumping at the chance to offer free-peering with some tiny ISP. Is that a "fraudulent business practice" from Level-3?
the concept of peering traffic "parity" does not apply to local ISPs connecting to backbone providers.
It always has before.
And Verizon is a backbone provider in their own right, not just a local ISP.
Who cares about the imbalance?
Verizon and Level-3.
It's the congestion we want fixed.
Good, then complain to Netflix. They can fix it.
I'm trying, but this isn't the
I only hope SoylentNews turns out better...
Stupid? I'm the only one here who seems to know what peering agreements are, and how they've worked for the past several decades.
There's no question Verizon has plenty of bandwidth. The problem here is Level-3 breaking their peering agreement, and not wanting to renegotiate, so Verizon has ever right to disconnect Level-3 and Netflix from their customers. Instead, they let the peering point get congested, until a new agreement is worked out.
It's how peering has always worked. You're the one arguing we need to erase the history of the internet, and turn it into a receiver-pays model, where every site you visit gets a few cents from Verizon.
In the old days, when peering became imbalanced, ISPs would shut-off peering with each other, bifurcating the internet for weeks until one side agreed to pay another. These days, they just let the peering points get congested, and don't upgrade it.
I'm sure if Level-3 would agree to pay Verizon for the peering imbalance, Verizon would upgrade the peering points, but that would cost Level-3 more in the long-term. Level-3 pointing the finger at Verizon, and shaming them in the court of public opinion, is cheaper than fixing their peering imbalance.
So it's your assertion that Verizon should pay to run lines to the Netflix data center, and give them all the free bandwidth they can use?
Peering agreements have never depended on who requested what data. They're much simpler up/down traffic ratios.
Everybody seems to have enough hate of Verizon, and love of Netflix, that they just want to punish the former, in favor of the later, no matter the circumstances.
Verizon just changed all their FIOS plans to be symmetric up/down, so they're at least less guilty than other ISPs.
In addition, Verizon isn't just customers. They host sites, too. More Redbox streaming going over Level-3 would help to level things out.
Or Level-3 could offer cut-rates to online backup service providers, who recieve a lot of traffic from customers, and only a fraction as many requests. Or Netfliix could change their player to upload junk data to some random server all-the-time, which would help tremendously.
The point remains, no-fee peering has always required roughly equivalent up/down traffic, so the horrible imbalance Netflix causes, is going to cause peering disuptes, legitimately, without any evil conspiracy from Verizon and others. And that's not even getting started on Level-3's poorly concieved CDN, taking money from ISPs while futher imbalancing their peering arrangements.
More peering links won't rectify the imbalance. Your claims of knowing anything about the subject fall quite flat.
It sounds like this transformer had its center tap grounded and was the path to ground on one side of a ground loop as the geomagnetic field moved under pressure from a CME, inducing a common-mode current in the long-distance power line. A gas pipeline in an area of poor ground conductivity in Russia was also destroyed, it is said, resulting in 500 deaths.
One can protect against this phenomenon by use of common-mode breakers and perhaps even overheat breakers. The system will not stay up but nor will it be destroyed. This is a high-current rather than high-voltage phenomenon and thus the various methods used to dissipate lightning currents might not be effective.
That is a load of horeshit technobabble meant to obfuscate and mislead.
No, his explanation is spot-on. If "technobabble" means you didn't understand it, that's besides the point.
There is no reason that any link between it and another network should remain saturated if both sides are acting in good faith to serve their respective customers
Level-3 is acting in bad-faith in a couple different ways. Offering to give Verizon a small amount of money does not obviate the large ways in which they are acting badly, which will make them even more money.
it is Verizon's customers who are requesting and already paying for the content in the first place.
Customers pay both Verizon and Netflix. Both sides are supposed to pay their own costs of transit and bandwidth. Saying that Verizon should acquies to badly-behaving peers is a small step away from saying that Verizon should provide free internet services for every service their customers request.
Verizon is choosing to not upgrade its connections to shake down Netflix
Verizon is choosing not to upgrade it's peering points with Level-3 because they are no longer evenly sharing traffic up/down as all free peering arrangements have ALWAYS required, yet Level-3 doesn't want to pay for the imbalance, and Netflix doesn't want to shift some of their Verizon traffic to a different transit provider than Level-3.
Netflix offered to provide co-located CDNs, and all Verizon had to provide was electricity and space (both of which are negligible compared to the cost for Verizon to pay for bandwidth.) Verizon elected not to take the option that would save them money
If Netflix got a free CDN setup without paying ISPs anything, Verizon would quickly see all the other CDNs refusing to pay them, too.
On that same note, I know where you can get a FREE 40-hour/week job... You won't have to pay a penny for this FREE job.
Remember the good old days, when CPU was singular?
