grover5
Well-known member
Remember that Netflix wasn't initially party to the peering agreement, Cogent was. When Cogent biffed it, then Netflix created brand new agreements, which, yes, cost money.
So what, in your view, differentiates a settlement free peering agreement with a normal peering agreement? Why would the network receiving the traffic pay the network transmitting it? I won't say it never happened, if market conditions allowed for it, but normally the sending network pays for delivery. For an example of this, search for articles that describe Cogent's spats with Level 3 (e.g. Level 3 Issues Statement Concerning Internet Peering and Cogent Communications -- re> BROOMFIELD, Colo., Oct. 7 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- ). Note that Level 3 is complaining that Cogent is not paying for their imbalance of traffic. Again, normal, and supports what I have been saying.
We don't yet know that the FCC rules do. So I *might* agree with you. My point all along is that people are completely confused and think that Net Neutrality is about the Netflix issue. I've been trying to tease out the difference. So I agree with you when it comes to Netflix and neutrality. But even you completely biffed the definition of a peering agreement.
My only goal give some examples and explain things. You'll have to trust me on this, but I don't work for a telco or a large ISP. I can't be accused of bias because I'm beholden to them, because I'm not! I have always been a huge fan of the Internet! I've been working in and around the Internet since 1991 (before it was commercialized). I've been following this stuff for a while. I love networking, that's all!
That works. I'm a huge fan of the internet as well.
Posted via the iMore App for Android