Level 3’s Selective Amnesia on Peering(publicpolicy.verizon.com) This is a rebuttal by David Young, Vice President, Verizon Regulatory Affairs to Level 3's blog regarding peering and bottlenecks [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8048997 |
Level 3’s Selective Amnesia on Peering(publicpolicy.verizon.com) This is a rebuttal by David Young, Vice President, Verizon Regulatory Affairs to Level 3's blog regarding peering and bottlenecks [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8048997 |
* Traffic for which both A and B are being paid by their respective customers
* Traffic for which A is being paid by the sender or recipient, but B is not paid
* Traffic for which B is being paid by the sender or recipient, but A is not paid
Currently, there is controversy over a large amount of traffic flowing like this:
Netflix -> Level 3 -> Verizon -> Consumers
Netflix -> Level 3 Verizon <- Consumers
Verizon just wants to double dip and get more money, as a business with commitments to shareholders this is a reasonable argument, as a person that can reason it is very ignorant.
Fuck the cunts with their "commitment to shareholders" at the cost of society. The subhuman imbeciles running this show deserve nothing more than to be taken into an alley and shot. The same goes for the lobbyist cunts that make it all happen, since their entire business is "enrich myself at the cost of EVERYONE else."
> Rather than buy the capacity they need, Level 3 insists that Verizon should add capacity to the existing peering link for additional downstream traffic even though the traffic is already wildly out of balance.
So... Verizon doesn't even claim it's impossible, or the wrong solution. L3 says they need additional peering links and is willing to pay for the cards. Both companies have spare capacity on both sides of that link. The complaint is weird too "the traffic is already wildly out of balance" - of course it is - they're an ISP! Of course the customers will download more than upload.
What's wrong with that? Could someone explain why it isn't an accepted solution?
Verizon is saying that Level 3 should pay for the bandwidth (probably way more costly than the cards), since they are already getting more than they are owed in the free peering agreement.
There are some interesting points in that Ars article that I think are worth noting. For one, what is being discussed in that article is case in point what Verizon is admitting they are doing. They have the head-room to handle the bandwidth that Cogent and Level 3 could send in their direction [2]. However are specifically not adding any more interconnections and asking for someone to pay for more interconnections. Sounds like a "toll" to me.
The other point that is interesting to me is in some of the debate about net neutrality people specifically state that what they what is for ISPs to not purposely throttle traffic on their network. However, this tactic seems to be the loop-hole in that request. Meaning if Verizon never properly peers with Level 3 then they have no reason to throttle the Level 3 traffic. It is already made scarce, and throttled, by the arbitrary scarcity of the limited traffic that is allowed through the peers. Thus Verizon and all ISPs can adhere to the letter of the law. While probably ignoring the spirit of it.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03/level-3-and-cogent-a...
[2] http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-bu...
Verizon is in the process of switching to all-symmetric connections, so this is a little less absurd than it was a week ago.
Can't anyone act like adults these days? Or is this just how adults behave?
I'm going to go with this.
Verizon's position is that simply adding more cards within the free peering agreement will make it even more unbalanced in level 3's favour, hence their suggestion that level 3 pay for bandwidth through a different agreement.