1. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    I don't think anyone beyond the FCC knows yet.

    Everyone likes to bring up Netflix, but their traffic was not throttled in the traffic shaping sense. The Netflix traffic was treated like all peering traffic. The problem was that the peering connection did not have enough bandwidth to some ISPs. There was a lot of finger pointing. Probably some lying. But what most people don't understand is that Verizon may have been telling the truth.

    At the time Netflix was using Cogent to deliver their traffic over peering links. Cogent prides itself in their peering. Most (all?) of their peering agreements are settlement free. That means that the traffic they send is about the same amount they receive for that link. When this happens both parties call it even and do not charge for traffic delivery since it would zero out. I think what happened is that when Cogrnt got Netflix as a customer they figured it wouldn't mess with their existing peering agreements. That didn't hold up when Netflix increased resolution and became more popular. Cogent really didn't want to upgrade the peering links because it might mess up the balance and they would have to pay the other network (the ISP) to deliver their packets.

    When Netflix fully understood that Cogent could or would no longer properly deliver their traffic they dumped them and went with another national network or setup their own peering agreements.

    In anycase all this is a normal and fundamental part of the way the Internet works. No traffic was pulled out and degraded by the ISP and therefore has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
    Then why did Netflix sign a direct deal with Comcast? Cogent didnt have a problem with Netflix.... Comcast did. And when Netflix paid Comcast, Netflix didnt buffer for Comcast customers.

    Comcast absolutely throttled Netflix traffic because I used my VPN to get around it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    02-28-2015 08:32 AM
  2. grover5's Avatar
    I don't think anyone beyond the FCC knows yet.

    Everyone likes to bring up Netflix, but their traffic was not throttled in the traffic shaping sense. The Netflix traffic was treated like all peering traffic. The problem was that the peering connection did not have enough bandwidth to some ISPs. There was a lot of finger pointing. Probably some lying. But what most people don't understand is that Verizon may have been telling the truth.

    At the time Netflix was using Cogent to deliver their traffic over peering links. Cogent prides itself in their peering. Most (all?) of their peering agreements are settlement free. That means that the traffic they send is about the same amount they receive for that link. When this happens both parties call it even and do not charge for traffic delivery since it would zero out. I think what happened is that when Cogrnt got Netflix as a customer they figured it wouldn't mess with their existing peering agreements. That didn't hold up when Netflix increased resolution and became more popular. Cogent really didn't want to upgrade the peering links because it might mess up the balance and they would have to pay the other network (the ISP) to deliver their packets.

    When Netflix fully understood that Cogent could or would no longer properly deliver their traffic they dumped them and went with another national network or setup their own peering agreements.

    In anycase all this is a normal and fundamental part of the way the Internet works. No traffic was pulled out and degraded by the ISP and therefore has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
    Nobody is discussing peering (swapping), customer (selling), or transit (paying) because these are specifics that do not impact the reality of what these companies were lobbying for. You're clouding the waters. I don't know if you're doing it deliberately or are actually confused. Either way we could discuss the way the internet works all day but at the end of the day these companies wanted to create toll roads to make more money and to decide who gets or doesn't get fast speeds. That is what the ruling denied them and that is what they are appealing. It was never in doubt.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    02-28-2015 10:06 AM
  3. grover5's Avatar
    jeffgus... It's nice to see someone here that actually knows what they're talking about... Thanks.
    Lol.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    02-28-2015 10:07 AM
  4. jeffgus's Avatar
    Then why did Netflix sign a direct deal with Comcast? Cogent didnt have a problem with Netflix.... Comcast did. And when Netflix paid Comcast, Netflix didnt buffer for Comcast customers.

    Comcast absolutely throttled Netflix traffic because I used my VPN to get around it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    It was not throttled. The VPN routed around the peering connection. This is the problem... People don't know what peering is. They don't understand why a VPN solved the problem and assumed it is evil Comcast hurting Netflix. The answer is more complicated. People have Ben duped.

    Cogent had issues with the peering because they may have not wanted to send more traffic than they received over that port. If they did that then the peering would not have been settlement-free and they would have to pay Comcast to deliver the traffic.

    Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
    02-28-2015 11:31 AM
  5. jeffgus's Avatar
    Nobody is discussing peering (swapping), customer (selling), or transit (paying) because these are specifics that do not impact the reality of what these companies were lobbying for. You're clouding the waters. I don't know if you're doing it deliberately or are actually confused. Either way we could discuss the way the internet works all day but at the end of the day these companies wanted to create toll roads to make more money and to decide who gets or doesn't get fast speeds. That is what the ruling denied them and that is what they are appealing. It was never in doubt.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    Again, if you are defining "fast lanes" as peering then you have no idea how the Internet works. Any peering connection that is not settlement free requires the party that is sending the bulk of the traffic to pay for delivery.

    Sometimes companies setup peering so that bulk data is very cheap (or free) if the data is valuable. For example AOL and Yahoo! cut deals in the early days because their services were very popular and ISPs didn't want the traffic clogging up their transit links. One article years ago stated that Yahoo! was only paying for half of their total bandwidth requirements! This is because they made deals with large ISPs to peer with them. This type of deal it up to the parties involved. Normally traffic delivery requires a payment.

    The Netflix case is more complicated because a 3rd party was peering for them (Cogent).

    Netflix could have cut off special peering arrangements. Then their traffic would have flowed over the ISPs transit connection just like all the rest of the traffic. If Comcast throttled the traffic over their transit port, then that would have been a violation of Net Neutrality.

    See why the details are important?

    Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
    02-28-2015 11:46 AM
  6. grover5's Avatar
    Again, if you are defining "fast lanes" as peering then you have no idea how the Internet works. Any peering connection that is not settlement free requires the party that is sending the bulk of the traffic to pay for delivery.

    Sometimes companies setup peering so that bulk data is very cheap (or free) if the data is valuable. For example AOL and Yahoo! cut deals in the early days because their services were very popular and ISPs didn't want the traffic clogging up their transit links. One article years ago stated that Yahoo! was only paying for half of their total bandwidth requirements! This is because they made deals with large ISPs to peer with them. This type of deal it up to the parties involved. Normally traffic delivery requires a payment.

    The Netflix case is more complicated because a 3rd party was peering for them (Cogent).

    Netflix could have cut off special peering arrangements. Then their traffic would have flowed over the ISPs transit connection just like all the rest of the traffic. If Comcast throttled the traffic over their transit port, then that would have been a violation of Net Neutrality.

    See why the details are important?

    Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
    Sorry. This doesn't change the fact that these companies were openly trying to create fast lanes. It all starts and ends there. I still don't know if you don't understand or are purposefully trying to cloud the discussion but there was never any question about what Comcast and Verizon were fighting to get.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    02-28-2015 11:54 AM
  7. jeffgus's Avatar
    Sorry. This doesn't change the fact that these companies were openly trying to create fast lanes. It all starts and ends there. I still don't know if you don't understand or are purposefully trying to cloud the discussion but there was never any question about what Comcast and Verizon were fighting to get.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    And what you don't get is that peering is how the Internet works. In the early days of the Internet Robert Metcalfe predicted that the Internet backbones would collapse before the turn of the century. It didn't happen. Companies were connecting their networks together so traffic did not have to travel over transit links. Thus was a good thing. Not only did it relieve the stress on the backbones, but it also cut down on the number of hops it would take for a packet to travel. Peering saved the Internet.

    I'm trying to open your mind. I'm trying to give you some insight into how the Internet actually works.

    Just to define terms....
    Transit connection is a general connection to the broader Internet. There is no say in how the packet travels. All you pay for is raw capacity. Transit providers are not equal in their peering. So a content provider my choose one ISP over another based on their peering. Depends on what you need where you are and how much you want to pay. The big telcos are very well peered. Cable companies have great last mile, but terrible peering.

    Peering connects two networks together. Packets traveling over a peering port are expected to end up in that network. If the packet is just traveling through the network then the network is a transit network. So I am Netflix and I want my packets to go directly to an ISP then I will peer with that ISP. Netflix saves money on their overall transit costs. Peering is priced differently than a transit connection. If both networks are large backbone providers, there may be an opportunity for settlement free peering. That means that both networks have packets destined for each other and there is not point in using a other network to deliver the packets. So they agree to call it a wash and connect the networks directly. If the balance falls out of contract definition of settlement free, then the network sending more data is expected to pay for the delivery of their packets.

    Since Netflix is a bulk sender of data, then they must pay for the delivery of their packets. This is nothing new. Netflix has been treated no differently than any other network peering agreements.

    Netflix could have opted to stop peering, but then their transit costs would sky rocket.

    So, are you saying that the FCC should outlaw peering? That makes no sense. No point in traffic traveling over a tier 1 link when the networks are across the room from each other. So I can't believe you mean that.

    Maybe you are saying that peering shouldn't cost money? That can't be true, because peering costs money. Are you saying that the FCC should determine the costs of peering? What is a terrible idea. Anytime a government has tried price controls, it has been a disaster.

    So maybe you are saying that traffic should not be shaped and categorized based on who is sending or receiving it. Okay, fine, but that is not what the Netflix deal was about. Since no one yet knows that is in the new FCC rules, we don't know how this, or if, this effects Netflix's deals.
    Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
    Last edited by jeffgus; 02-28-2015 at 04:37 PM.
    kch50428 and Ledsteplin like this.
    02-28-2015 04:17 PM
  8. jeffgus's Avatar
    Sorry. This doesn't change the fact that these companies were openly trying to create fast lanes. It all starts and ends there. I still don't know if you don't understand or are purposefully trying to cloud the discussion but there was never any question about what Comcast and Verizon were fighting to get.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    Also, do you want to totally eliminate businesses like Akamai that exist specifically for their peering and content caching? They peer so you don't have to.

    http://www.akamai.com/peering/

    Look at Cogent's peering (it's a long list):
    AS174 ?(#5) Peering Analysis Report

    Are you saying all those "fast lanes" should go away? It seems to me that you are saying that large telco's should be the ones in charge. Are you saying peering is bad and all Internet traffic should go over the telco's networks first? And here I thought most people that liked Net Neutrality hated large companies like Verizon!
    02-28-2015 04:58 PM
  9. jeffgus's Avatar
    Lol.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    Just keep your mind closed. By the "lol" you are showing your ignorance is bliss.
    kch50428 likes this.
    02-28-2015 05:07 PM
  10. grover5's Avatar
    Just keep your mind closed. By the "lol" you are showing your ignorance is bliss.
    jeffgus, you're confused. This ruling did not change the peering agreements in place. It is keeping things exactly as they are now with all the peering agreements as they have been for 20 years. It seems you don't understand or don't want to discuss the fact that Comcast, AT&T and Verizon all lobbied to be able to throttle speeds and block sites. They lost. They can't do that now. You know more about the internet than you do about the case.
    02-28-2015 05:26 PM
  11. jeffgus's Avatar
    Then why did Netflix sign a direct deal with Comcast? Cogent didnt have a problem with Netflix.... Comcast did. And when Netflix paid Comcast, Netflix didnt buffer for Comcast customers.

    Comcast absolutely throttled Netflix traffic because I used my VPN to get around it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Just to clarify, your VPN just routed around the peering port. Your VPN endpoint terminated at a machine in another network that either had better peering with Netflix, or terrible peering, but enough transit bandwidth that the throughput was improved. If your VPN terminated inside Amazon's AWS cloud, then you were very "close" to where the Netflix content originated from and you created your own "fast lane" to Netflix.

    The VPN proved nothing. A VPN can't tell if it was purposeful "shaping" (which is not neutral) or just a congested port. They are very different things. It is a shame that so many tech blogs didn't know the difference. I suspect their social justice politics clouded their thinking. They are so hung up on solving the "digital divide" problem that they didn't think deeply about the issues Netflix was having with their peering.
    kch50428 likes this.
    02-28-2015 05:28 PM
  12. kch50428's Avatar
    ...I suspect their social justice politics clouded their thinking. They are so hung up on solving the "digital divide" problem that they didn't think...
    must be contagious. This thread has some excellent examples of people who are more concerned about "feelings", and "sticking it to evil corporations" than actually understanding the realities involved.
    BreakingKayfabe and hydrogen3 like this.
    02-28-2015 05:53 PM
  13. grover5's Avatar
    must be contagious. This thread has some excellent examples of people who are more concerned about "feelings", and "sticking it to evil corporations" than actually understanding the realities involved.
    Well if you really are interested in reality I'll post this again...jeffgus, you're confused. This ruling did not change the peering agreements in place. It is keeping things exactly as they are now with all the peering agreements as they have been for 20 years. It seems you don't understand or don't want to discuss the fact that Comcast, AT&T and Verizon all lobbied to be able to throttle speeds and block sites. They lost. They can't do that now. They wanted to provide private direct "fast lanes" for a higher fee and allow degredation for slow lanes or just to block sites.
    02-28-2015 06:04 PM
  14. jeffgus's Avatar
    Well if you really are interested in reality I'll post this again...jeffgus, you're confused. This ruling did not change the peering agreements in place. It is keeping things exactly as they are now with all the peering agreements as they have been for 20 years. It seems you don't understand or don't want to discuss the fact that Comcast, AT&T and Verizon all lobbied to be able to throttle speeds and block sites. They lost. They can't do that now. They wanted to provide private direct "fast lanes" for a higher fee and allow degredation for slow lanes or just to block sites.
    Define "fast lanes". When you say "private direct fast lane" that could easily be interpreted as a content provider directly peering with an ISP so that only their traffic traverses that port. It is private because the routing protocols would never send any other traffic from the content provider to the ISP. The routing protocol in this case would never announce that the peer provides transit to another network. So which sites did they block or throttle?

    People were upset about the Netflix issue and that wasn't a "fast lane". The Netflix issue was a peering issue not a fast lane issue, but it was called one anyway. I see all the time people stating that Netflix traffic was "throttled", but it wasn't. The peering link was congested, but all packets were being treated exactly the same.

    We don't yet know what the FCC has decided. We don't know for sure that they don't have say over peering. I certainly hope not!
    kch50428 likes this.
    02-28-2015 06:32 PM
  15. grover5's Avatar
    Define "fast lanes". When you say "private direct fast lane" that could easily be interpreted as a content provider directly peering with an ISP so that only their traffic traverses that port. It is private because the routing protocols would never send any other traffic from the content provider to the ISP. The routing protocol in this case would never announce that the peer provides transit to another network. So which sites did they block or throttle?

    People were upset about the Netflix issue and that wasn't a "fast lane". The Netflix issue was a peering issue not a fast lane issue, but it was called one anyway. I see all the time people stating that Netflix traffic was "throttled", but it wasn't. The peering link was congested, but all packets were being treated exactly the same.

    We don't yet know what the FCC has decided. We don't know for sure that they don't have say over peering. I certainly hope not!
    From everything I've read the FCC has no interest in getting involved in the peering. The direct fast lanes were not described any better than a private direct fast lane. It is most likely a peer with no other traffic. I am aware of the Netflix issue and recognize that comcast had not been maintaining their lanes very well and that pushed netflix behind the 8 ball. As someone described it, comcast has no competition so people would leave netflix before comcast. In other parts of the world there is more competition and that would not have worked so netflix had to pay to improve the pipe.

    They didn't block or throttle yet. That was the point of the ruling. They petitioned to have that ability and the FCC considered it a year ago but ultimately voted against it. From what I have read the FCC wants to ensure the system continues as it has for the last 20 years. This ruling was not a win for netflix.
    02-28-2015 06:52 PM
  16. Ledsteplin's Avatar
    Thanks, @jeffgus , I have learnt some things about the Internet today. It makes sense now.


    Sent from my ancient iPhone 5 (no longer trustworthy)
    02-28-2015 07:06 PM
  17. jeffgus's Avatar
    From everything I've read the FCC has no interest in getting involved in the peering. The direct fast lanes were not described any better than a private direct fast lane. It is most likely a peer with no other traffic.
    That *is* the definition of a peer! You just perfectly proved my point that people are completely confused and have no idea how the Internet works.

    If the traffic was not destined to the peered network, then it would be a transit connection.

    I am aware of the Netflix issue and recognize that comcast had not been maintaining their lanes very well and that pushed netflix behind the 8 ball. As someone described it, comcast has no competition so people would leave netflix before comcast. In other parts of the world there is more competition and that would not have worked so netflix had to pay to improve the pipe.
    Of course they had to pay. That is the traditional agreement. If the traffic is mainly going one way, the party sending the traffic has to pay the other party for delivery of their packets. Nothing new here. It is how Internet peering works.

    Now I agree with you about competition, but the FCC doesn't have much say about that. If you want more competition in the last mile, complain to your local city government. See if they can streamline things and reduce red tape. FCC rules just add to red tape so that is the opposite of what we all want.

    They didn't block or throttle yet. That was the point of the ruling. They petitioned to have that ability and the FCC considered it a year ago but ultimately voted against it. From what I have read the FCC wants to ensure the system continues as it has for the last 20 years. This ruling was not a win for netflix.
    So you're saying they have an answer in search of a problem.
    Plenty of people think it is a win for Netflix. They think Netflix was screwed over and don't understand that parties do have to pay for their packets to be delivered over a peering connection.

    Do you realize that "diffserv" has existed for a least 17 years ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2474 )? And diffserv replaced ToS which goes back to RFC 791 (1981). There has always been a desire that some traffic receive some sort of priority over other traffic. A hospital may want certain guarantees that their traffic gets priority over bittorrent traffic. VoIP should get lower latency than video streaming. I don't see an issue with that as long as the network is not purposefully blocking traffic. If the FCC bands all differentiated service, then that is a problem, not a solution.
    02-28-2015 07:28 PM
  18. grover5's Avatar
    I couldn't disagree with you more Jeff. But that isn't surprising. Actually when comcast charged more to Netflix for repair of their slow pipe it was a first that the charges flowed in that direction for that purpose. I won't bother with your peering statement. You seem pretty desperate to be the only guy who has a clue how the internet works so I'll let you keep on with that. You however still don't understand what went down with Netflix and what the FCC's ruling was in response too but I can't just keep repeating myself so good luck with that. Thanks for the chat. It was interesting.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    02-28-2015 07:53 PM
  19. kch50428's Avatar
    I know what Jeff is saying is factual... and you, grover5, don't know what the FCCs new rules are because they've not been made public... You only know the ordure your favorite social justice technoblogs are dropping in the proverbial sandbox.
    02-28-2015 08:06 PM
  20. jeffgus's Avatar
    I couldn't disagree with you more Jeff. But that isn't surprising. Actually when comcast charged more to Netflix for repair of their slow pipe it was a first that the charges flowed in that direction for that purpose. I won't bother with your peering statement.
    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.

    You seem pretty desperate to be the only guy who has a clue how the internet works so I'll let you keep on with that. You however still don't understand what went down with Netflix and what the FCC's ruling was in response too but I can't just keep repeating myself so good luck with that. Thanks for the chat. It was interesting.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    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!
    02-28-2015 08:29 PM
  21. grover5's Avatar
    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
    02-28-2015 08:34 PM
  22. 2ndAmendNut's Avatar
    I don't care who was trying to do what. It never fails. Whenever the government regulates something, service is degraded and the price goes up. That's a lose/lose for all of us.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    hydrogen3 likes this.
    02-28-2015 08:38 PM
  23. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    I don't care who was trying to do what. It never fails. Whenever the government regulates something, service is degraded and the price goes up. That's a lose/lose for all of us.


    Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus using Tapatalk
    "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

    ~ Adam Smith
    A895 likes this.
    02-28-2015 09:17 PM
  24. hydrogen3's Avatar
    Many government run offices are poorly run. I would never say otherwise.
    Under this Administration. That's 100% correct.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    03-01-2015 10:07 AM
  25. grover5's Avatar
    Under this Administration. That's 100% correct.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Under any administration.

    Posted via the iMore App for Android
    03-01-2015 11:40 AM
183 ... 34567 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-26-2015, 04:51 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-26-2015, 01:51 PM
  3. Save 46% today on this iPhone 6 hard case with kickstand in any color!
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-26-2015, 10:40 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-25-2015, 10:51 AM
  5. Here's how to take fantastic macro shots on your iPhone
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-24-2015, 05:22 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD