Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:ISPs don't want to take Cogent's money (Score 0) 706

by the_B0fh (#48352653) Attached to: President Obama Backs Regulation of Broadband As a Utility

Thank you for giving us the Netflix perspective. Counter arguments:

1) Residential broadband networks were never engineered as video delivery systems.

Please stop talking out of your ass. With Comcast, it has been demonstrated that Comcast Residential account has plenty of bandwidth.
The choke point was the interconnect between comcast and level 3. Level 3 was willing to pay for the capital improvements - in fact, in the peering hotel, they could see the other side had open slots in the chassis.

2) Related to the last point above, moving bits doesn't directly cost the ISP money but sustained higher bitrates do require a larger CapEx investment. Caps are a blunt force instrument that should be done away with in favor of demand or 95th percentile billing, IMHO.

And Level 3, Cogent, etc are willing to foot that cost. Which isn't Comcast, etc taking them up on that offer?

4) Settlement free peering (which is essentially what Netflix is demanding) has historically only been offered in instances where the traffic to be exchanged is roughly equal. If you're relying on me to deliver your traffic for you then you pay me. It has been this way since the beginning of the commercial internet. This ecosystem literally built the internet as we know it. If you want to blow it up the onus is on you to explain why your system is better.

Netflix isn't an ISP. They shouldn't be in the peering business. Their ISP is an ISP *AND* is in the peering business. Keeping that straight would be useful in any discussion.

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Working...