Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (Score 1) 393

by thule (#47541271) Attached to: Enraged Verizon FiOS Customer Seemingly Demonstrates Netflix Throttling

Thanks for this! Both you and the previous poster explaining BGP. So many people have misconceptions on how the Internet works. Then there is the added complexity of business.

I really proves nothing that Netflix over a VPN is faster than without a VPN. We already know Verizon-Level3 peering is saturated. Both sides have admitted it. It comes down to how to solve the problem. It is not a technical problem. It is a business problem

So what if Level3 offers to pay for the upgraded link. If the existing agreement is settlement-free upgrading the link will likely push the traffic exchange outside the agreement. So if Level3 starts sending more traffic than it received from Verizon, then they should pay Verizon for transit of that traffic. Verizon has probably told them that. Level3 comes back and says, "But we'll pay for the upgraded equipment." Verizon says, "So what? If the traffic isn't equal, then you pay." And on and on it goes. So, as stated above, the best thing to do is for Netflix to create peering connections with Verizon that have no expectation of equal traffic. They will have to pay Verizon for these connections.

This is NOTHING new people. This is how the Internet has always worked.

Comment: Re:But scarcity! (Score 0) 390

by thule (#47482693) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa
That is exactly why I don't think complaining to the FCC will solve the problem. Just the opposite, it could make it much worse. It is much better to work at the local level. Push for more competition at the local level. Not city owned fiber, but companies like Google that can come in a put in their own fiber. This is where the real action is.

Comment: Re:And yet... (Score 1) 270

Maybe you should have read to the end of the article. Just saying. To quote: "If Comcast’s last-mile of cable connection was available to all competitors under the same terms that gave dial-up service providers access to all copper telephone networks back in the 1990s, we would have more ISPs in more geographical areas. "

Comment: Re:Completely wrong (Score 1) 270

Fast lanes allow the little guy to have more bandwidth! Less congestion on large backbones is good for everyone. I think the article is exactly right. People have an idea in their head on how the Internet works, but it is not practical or real. Even the little guy can select a colo for a reasonable cost based on the peering of the colo. The is no reason for every little startup to have peering because they just don't have the demand yet. Their transit bandwidth and costs are fine for the time. When they get larger, they could use 3rd party CDN's, then their own CDN, etc, etc.

Comment: Re:Simple solution (Score 1) 270

VoD over coax was using other channels than the channels used for Internet. The thing is, video is not a profitable for cable companies anymore. People have a lot of choices where to get their content. People are cutting cords and therefore can't take advantage of the cable companies VoD service. Cable companies are loosing their vertical integration, not increasing it.

Comment: Re:Bad idea (Score 1) 190

by thule (#47257815) Attached to: U.S. Democrats Propose Legislation To Ban Internet Fast Lanes

Why are you assuming it was the cable company that didn't want to upgrade the links? Cogent had just as much incentive not to upgrade the links because they survive on settlement free peering. Upgrading the links would have possibly put them outside of the peering agreement. In fact, it was reported that it did! It was a much better idea for Netflix to handle the peering agreements directly. They are big enough now, they can do that. It only helps everyone's connection. It is a good thing.

BTW, cable companies aren't making money in video anymore. They have been squeezed between "cord cutters" and content providers loosing eyeballs. Cable companies *are* making money on the Internet. Especially metro Ethernet for businesses. They already have most of the right-of-ways they need. They have the crews to build out connections to buildings. I really don't think the cable companies care about Netflix other than it will increase the demand for bandwidth, which they sell.

Comment: Re:Bad idea (Score 1) 190

by thule (#47257757) Attached to: U.S. Democrats Propose Legislation To Ban Internet Fast Lanes
Ummm. That *is* peering. Peering doesn't have to happen settlement-free at the Tier-1 level. Yahoo! peered with ISP's way back in the day so they could more efficiently send their content to ISP's. It was "free" because neither side used their transit connections. The traffic certainly wasn't balanced enough to be called a "settlement-free peer".

Comment: Re:Just do SOMETHING (Score 4, Interesting) 190

by thule (#47257715) Attached to: U.S. Democrats Propose Legislation To Ban Internet Fast Lanes

Did I say I didn't want *any* oversight? I'm not an anarchist. I just want it easier. End exclusive franchises. Open things up. This has to happen at the local level. So, yes, let the *local* voters decide.

BTW, many people already have microwave transmitters in their house. It's called a cell phone. Also, WiFi is microwave. The FCC allows license free use of some frequencies. For all you know, you may already have a dish pointed at your house.

Comment: Re:Bad idea (Score 1) 190

by thule (#47257665) Attached to: U.S. Democrats Propose Legislation To Ban Internet Fast Lanes

How does common carrier fix this? In the old days, if I was an alternative long distance provider, say MCI (they paved the way for others), wouldn't I have to make sure that I had enough capacity at the local exchange? The local exchange would "peer" with me. I can't imaging the local exchanges forcing all the long distance traffic to the various companies out of a *single* port on their switch.

Let's put it another way. Say I had this brand new idea for a phone service (the industry term is "audiotext"). I decided I want MCI to handle my calls instead of Ma Bell. So I setup with MCI. Suddenly everyone likes my service. The only problem is that MCI doesn't have the capacity that MaBell has at some of the more popular localities. MCI's switch just isn't as big as MaBell's and the link to the metro switch is saturated. Do I stick with MCI and pay MaBell? Or do I make my own links to those popular metro areas?

This is not common carrier stuff. What this fast lane law is proposing is something completely new.

Comment: Re:just label ISP's as common carriers already (Score 1) 190

by thule (#47257545) Attached to: U.S. Democrats Propose Legislation To Ban Internet Fast Lanes

That what is means to you. Net Neutrality in the beginning only meant that all packets were treated the same. Peering *does* treat all packets the same. Peering is a good thing so that ONE large provider of content can't spike out the connection for *everyone*. How is that helpful?

Think about my example with long distance companies. Even *with* common carrier it was up to the individual long distance companies to accommodate the required capacity at the local exchange. The entire long distance traffic for a CO didn't come out of a single port on the switch. MCI in the early days built out their own alternative path for calls using microwave towers. Phone companies had to pay other telcos to connect calls at the local level. Sound familiar? Isn't that what Netflix is doing?

What you are proposing is not common carrier, but something brand new.

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.

Working...