I'm not sure why you're so intent on dodging the topic and doing copypasta. Peer link equipment isn't the downstream as you mention... it's the peer link. Anything on the other possibilities?
I'm not sure why you're so intent on dodging the topic and doing copypasta. Peer link equipment isn't the downstream as you mention... it's the peer link. Anything on the other possibilities?
certainly not dodging the topic ... I must be missing what you are wanting?
who said peer link equipment is downstream? that's high up in the food chain .. FYI .. using plain English for highly technical topics without losing most everyone .. to me, that's the earmark of a well written article.
the point of all this the throttling by ISP's for the bandwidth what you PAID for. let's say you are guaranteed a 1.5mb/sec performance download speeds, which is super slow by today's standards. it takes about 100k/sec to support streaming video without pauses. this modest requirement is but a fraction of guaranteed broadband speeds .. yet most if not all of us have seen performance slow to a craw ...
This is the same old argument we have whenever we compare costs models; do you peanut-butter it across everyone, or pile it on only those who will use it?
Turnpikes- Why should those who don't use turnpikes pay for them with taxes. Tolls put the burden on only those who use them, including the interstate trucks that don't pay local taxes.
Baggage fees - Why should a business traveler on a day-trip share the costs for other people's bags?
Ad Valorem Taxes - Why do people without kids pay taxes that go to school bonds? What about home-schoolers or private school families?
Streaming Content Providers - Assuming you believe the majority of people shouldn't have to pay for massive upgrades required for the small percentage of users who stream all day, then having the content providers add it to their costs is a sure way to insure those cost are borne by those who use the content.
It's a known fact that the majority of bandwidth is consumed by a relatively small number of users who stream content incessantly. I think the market can figure out how to satisfy the majority of their customers. It's in their best interests. Who's interest does the government serve?
Turnpikes- Why should those who don't use turnpikes pay for them with taxes. Tolls put the burden on only those who use them, including the interstate trucks that don't pay local taxes.
Baggage fees - Why should a business traveler on a day-trip share the costs for other people's bags?
Ad Valorem Taxes - Why do people without kids pay taxes that go to school bonds? What about home-schoolers or private school families?
Streaming Content Providers - Assuming you believe the majority of people shouldn't have to pay for massive upgrades required for the small percentage of users who stream all day, then having the content providers add it to their costs is a sure way to insure those cost are borne by those who use the content.
It's a known fact that the majority of bandwidth is consumed by a relatively small number of users who stream content incessantly. I think the market can figure out how to satisfy the majority of their customers. It's in their best interests. Who's interest does the government serve?
I've done a pretty good job communicating my questions here, if you've missed them then I'd just ask that you try harder.
It was plainly stated before: you said peer link equipment is downstream. The congestion points are peer links to providers like Comcast, Cox and TWC. Not downstream. I'm not sure you understand what a peer link is.
Again, there were 12 providers with congested peer links to L3. 6 have begun moving to add links to L3, but they're not done. What's to say the other 6 aren't currently dedicating resources to other Tier 1 providers, and the first 1 are refusing to upgrade peer links to other providers?
Level 3 is no saint. They flat out cut peer links to Cogent in 2005 because they thought Cogent should pay more to access their network.
.. FYI .. your copypasta wasn't related to our discussion here. Using copypasta to avoid topics is see-through.
Today CSPAN carried FCC chairman Wheelers press conference from yesterday.
Before watching that I was under the impression that the majority of the throttling was done on the back end at the peer link level but he made a curious statement during the press conference.
He said that, under the proposal the FCC is pursuing, it would be permissable to charge for more bandwidth at the point where traffic enters the ISP network but not on the consumer's end of "the pipe".
Then he said "that's not the case with the ComCast situation".
It left me with the impression that Comcast is throttling closer to the consumer, maybe even their edge routers to obtain more granularity of control.
Not sure.
Anyway, it just striking that he was basically admitting that some of the ISP's have been throttling and the FCC intends to legalize it.
He justifies it by reiterating over and over that the bandwidth that the customer pays for from his house to the ISP is not affected in any way under the proposal.
It's no wonder Tom Wheeler was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame in 2009.
Before watching that I was under the impression that the majority of the throttling was done on the back end at the peer link level but he made a curious statement during the press conference.
He said that, under the proposal the FCC is pursuing, it would be permissable to charge for more bandwidth at the point where traffic enters the ISP network but not on the consumer's end of "the pipe".
Then he said "that's not the case with the ComCast situation".
It left me with the impression that Comcast is throttling closer to the consumer, maybe even their edge routers to obtain more granularity of control.
Not sure.
Anyway, it just striking that he was basically admitting that some of the ISP's have been throttling and the FCC intends to legalize it.
He justifies it by reiterating over and over that the bandwidth that the customer pays for from his house to the ISP is not affected in any way under the proposal.
It's no wonder Tom Wheeler was inducted into the Cable Television Hall of Fame in 2009.
If we actually had competition in the ISP market, that might be true, but we don't.
Personally, I detest the whole argument; we're talking about gov't regulation vs. companies with monopoly power, so it's pretty much asking if you'd rather be shot or stabbed. Ugh.
Take a look at this:
Tom has been covering Net Neutrality for years, first at cNet then at TWiT.tv (he did a special on it for TWiT).
Last edited by a moderator:
It's possible. Lots of intrigue and head fakes are bound to happen when the stakes are this high.
I got something from that clip that clears up what I heard Wheeler say on CSPAN.
Now that I know that Comcast has agreed to not throttle at all for several years IF the purchase of Time Warner is approved by regulators it's clear what his meaning was.
So I misunderstood what he was referring to in his comments yesterday.
where did I state peer link was downstream? well aware of where peer links resides in networks and peering agreements that dictate who's responsible for what. throttling issues are occurring downstream firmly in folks like Comcast and TWC's control.
have never claimed level 3 was a saint .. no one gets to the size they are by having no enemies. just so happens level 3 is firmly on net neutrality's side for now. since that's the issue at hand .. level 3 should be supported.
now I'm not sure how much you understand on how networks operate? used to be network guys were low man on the totem pole along with PC tech support folks .. how things have changed...
besides .. who cares? for most folks once technology gets beyond a certain point .. it flys right by. that's why I stated earlier it's way more important to write in plain English on complex topics .. so everyone can understand.
been following networks back when Williams Pipeline first pulled fiber with a pig down their existing network of petroleum pipelines. since then due to advances in multiplexing .. available bandwidth has exploded as amount of data each strand of fiber is able to carry has ramped up geometrically.
if you want to talk complexity .. dive into optic fiber network transmission technical details ... see everyone's eyeballs glaze over .. so what does that prove?
Last edited:
The congested connections for Comcast and TWC aren't downstream, they're peering. You've made multiple statements like this, this is where you state this.
Among other ways, Level 3 makes money by selling network access to companies like Netflix. They're having congestions in some settlement-free links they have and for whatever reason, the other side has yet to agree to upgrade. Maybe L3 is being a douche to everyone, who knows. Their recourse is to lobby for the use of punitive measures from the Feds/FCC to force these peers to give them more free access to their network. They have other peering that isn't settlement-free, and you're not haranguing them for that. But here, you're griping that they're not being given enough free access to networks where you don't understand the operators situation. Maybe these groups are increasing their peering capacity with XO or someone else. You won't even admit that it's a possibility, why? For what side they're on, L3 is firmly on the side of L3 making more money.
The rest of your post, man, that's a lot of ramble.
Similar threads
