Jonkman Microblog
  • Login
Show Navigation
  • Public

    • Public
    • Network
    • Groups
    • Popular
    • People

Conversation

Notices

  1. kaniini (kaniini@mastodon.dereferenced.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2017 14:10:26 EST kaniini kaniini

    I like how everyone assumes that ISPs are *really* going to charge customers $5 per month for facebook (honestly this sounds like a feature anyway), when it's actually technically infeasible to do that type of granular control at scale.

    This was always about Netflix wanting free peering, don't believe the hype.

    In conversation Thursday, 14-Dec-2017 14:10:26 EST from mastodon.dereferenced.org permalink
    1. kaniini (kaniini@mastodon.dereferenced.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2017 14:18:07 EST kaniini kaniini
      in reply to

      Telecom networks are opportunistic, without many orders of magnitude capacity upgrades, a paid prioritization scheme simply won't work, at all.

      Since telecoms are looking to milk every last cent they can out of their current networks, I don't see that coming. The capex is way too large.

      So this brings us back to what the whole Net Neutrality thing was about: access to peering instead of transit.

      A properly effective Net Neutrality regulation would be one that requires ISPs to peer with anyone who otherwise meets their requirements, meaning that they don't get to pick winners and losers. This means Netflix or whatever else is next would be able to peer, if they covered the costs of facilitating it.

      In conversation Thursday, 14-Dec-2017 14:18:07 EST from mastodon.dereferenced.org permalink
      1. kaniini (kaniini@mastodon.dereferenced.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2017 14:25:26 EST kaniini kaniini
        in reply to

        Title II does *not* accomplish that.

        Title II is *mostly* about not discriminating between "on net" and "off net" services in the last mile, which is basically impossible to do, because again, networks are *opportunistic*. Something with closer adjacency is going to get better performance every time.

        Instead, SLAs should be required for off-net service accessibility, which can be enhanced with more friendly peering policies. Regulations to that effect would be really great.

        In conversation Thursday, 14-Dec-2017 14:25:26 EST from mastodon.dereferenced.org permalink
        1. kaniini (kaniini@mastodon.dereferenced.org)'s status on Thursday, 14-Dec-2017 14:31:08 EST kaniini kaniini
          in reply to

          Net Neutrality advocates largely are riled up by this image:

          https://mastodon.dereferenced.org/media/SKm65UDwJSp6qqL4wo0

          The problem is that such a scheme is *impossible* because Netflow is way too expensive to implement for this kind of billing. At best, data usage between transit and peering links can be billed, which is a practice done in some places.

          In conversation Thursday, 14-Dec-2017 14:31:08 EST from mastodon.dereferenced.org permalink
  • Help
  • About
  • FAQ
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • Source
  • Version
  • Contact

Jonkman Microblog is a social network, courtesy of SOBAC Microcomputer Services. It runs on GNU social, version 1.2.0-beta5, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.

Switch to desktop site layout.