Search results

You're right, it was anyone's guess, but so far the issue really hasn't been a problem (admitted earlier in this thread). The biggest blockers of content on the Internet are governments, not companies. Even if one company blocked content, there are ways around it (VPN, wireless ISP, cell phones...

Exactly! I think once people understand how the Internet works, they can immediately throw away Netflix as the poster child for Net Neutrality. Peering is the only logical way to handle traffic like Netflix generates. Your T-Mobile/Pandora partnership is a good example. I am much more...

This post is getting deep into the TCP stack: Netflix, call your lawyers: FCC is ready for interconnection complaints | Ars Technica But if you an grok what he is saying, then you will know why things like diffserv are a good idea. Diffserv can help to level the playing field for companies...

I have personally had to block web sites. The reason? Security. Some websites were hosting malware and I wanted to protect the users on the company network. I don't have a beef with blocking a web site. So banning the ability to block networks or web sites is not a good thing. Sometimes a...

Yes, that is what I am saying. Something similar like this exists for voice calls. This is not a perfect parallel, but it might help. Think of standard long distance phone calls: You have a local telephone company. You also have a long distance company. It used to be those two things were the...

Hey all, Here is a pretty good article about the FCC and Netflix: Netflix, call your lawyers: FCC is ready for interconnection complaints | Ars Technica The article starts off reporting that Netflix thinks that the new FCC rules may help them. But they also note that purposeful throttling was...

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...

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. Of course they had to pay. That is the traditional...

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...

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...

Just keep your mind closed. By the "lol" you are showing your ignorance is bliss.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Peering saved the Internet backbones. Back in the 90's AOL bought ANSNet so they could bring their content closer to the customer. We all benefited from that. It reduced congestion on the tier 1 backbones. Much of the popular content people see on the Internet bypasses the backbones. So if you...

Total confusion. What do you mean by toll road? Do you mean traffic shaping or peering? Neutrality means no shaping. Not sure what the FCC has to say about peering yet. So do you mean peering? Peering helps small companies by freeing up the ISPs transit link. So for example if a company like...

What Internet companies are doing that? It is a solution in search of a problem. And before you bring up Netflix... That was not traffic shaping. Netflix used Cogent to peer with ISPs. If Netflix wanted to be treated equal all that had to do is stop peering. Then take on all the costs of sending...

NFC itself isn't the fight. The fight is over the app and who handles the app to financial center transport. Google has their Wallet app and for some reason the *carriers* want to get into the picture with this "Isis" thing. The actual NFC part is just NFC and already defined by an ISO standard.