[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> That awful, no-good, pesky L3 just keeps sending these packets that nobody wants

You don't seem to understand peering at all. That's ok. Be quiet, listen to the rest of us that do.

No one gets to connect to Comcast's network unless they pay. You and me, we pay a monthly bill.

Peers pay the way by accepting Comcast's traffic in (roughly) equal amounts.

Level 3 isn't paying. You're absolutely right, Comcast doesn't want those. If you want them despite this, then the onus is on you to connect to Level 3 directly.

> People pay Comcast to transfer packets between themselves and the internet services

No they do not. If they believe this, they are mistaken. If that is a problem for them, they're free to discontinue doing business with Comcast.

Comcast cannot even charge them and offer a special "Netflix connectivity" service, because your herders have already taught you how to chant "network neutrality".

If all of this bothers you very much, then I would hope that you take the time to think carefully and profoundly and realize (as I have) that perhaps peering no longer works.

> In a free market, Comcast's inability to do that would result in customers leaving in droves.

They can leave now.

> It really shouldn't matter (within the bounds of legal reason) what's in the packets.

It doesn't matter. It matters where they're from, and that they're in roughly equal amounts to what Comcast sends.

[dllthomas]

"You don't seem to understand peering at all. That's ok. Be quiet, listen to the rest of us that do."

You don't seem to understand reality at all. If you can't say something nice, STFU.

As to reality:

Yes, peering often works the way you describe, but Netflix tweaking their player to ship back a bunch of garbage traffic to something on L3 (Netflix themselves, or otherwise) would balance those ratios and change "who should pay" in terms of your analysis, while being a total non-solution.

The simplistic analysis here is inappropriate. This is about 1) the fact that Comcast has a virtual (or actual) monopoly in many markets, and 2) Netflix competes with Comcast's other business. Abuse of market power to restrict unrelated trade is awful and often appropriately illegal.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> If you can't say something nice,

No one else is saying anything nice at all. They're spouting dumb shit, they're directing it at politicians and bureaucrats who will only make it worse. They refuse to stop and think, even though that would only take a moment.

This is much worse than any words I've ever said on the issue. It's worse than any name-calling I've ever done.

> Yes, peering often works the way you describe,

Not often, but always.

It is a voluntary arrangement. And if we try to force it to work differently, even when it's to one side's disadvantage, the logical thing is for them to decide not to peer at all.

But you've not thought it through very far.

> but Netflix tweaking their player to ship back a bunch of garbage traffic to something on L3 (Netflix themselves, or otherwise)

So your argument is that Netflix could cheat and make the world a worse place, and that Comcast should just give in to the implied extortion?

Something's wrong with your head if you can say these things and not give them a second thought.

> Netflix competes with Comcast's other business.

That's even less reason for Comcast to cooperate then. Comcast isn't obligated to give away free service to competitors, either legally or morally.

> Abuse of market power

What abuse? The voluntary agreement was for settlement-free peering for (roughly) equal levels of traffic.

Netflix is the abuser here.

[dllthomas]

"Something's wrong with your head if you can say these things and not give them a second thought."

Again, there's no reason to be abusive. I'm not going to respond to any further comments in this thread that don't take a more respectful tone.

As it happens, I seem to have given it deeper thought than you have:

"So your argument is that Netflix could cheat and make the world a worse place, and that Comcast should just give in to the implied extortion?"

No, my argument was that "same amount of traffic" is obviously a meaningless metric. In my example with Netflix passing back garbage data, you can call it cheating... but what if that data was useful?

Let's imagine the following:

Netflix cuts a deal with some content providers, such that they will provide (anonymized) information on facial expressions and eye tracking of (opted-in) viewers while content plays. Studios are pay for this. Netflix passes some of that money along to customers who opt in. Netflix decides to do the processing server side, because of the resources required for whatever analysis they're doing.

Now the ratios are significantly more balanced, to the benefit of Netflix (who is making more money), the Netflix customers (who are paying less money), and the determent of Comcast (who is passing more traffic). How is it right that Comcast is owed less money in that case? They probably need to build out more infrastructure than in the present case.

Settlement-free peering fits when there is roughly equal levels of value derived from the traffic. That only sometimes corresponds to roughly equal levels of traffic.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

You haven't earned my respect. At every opportunity, you lose what little there might have ever been.

If you won't listen to reason unless reason strokes your ego, then you were never interested in it anyway. There are plenty of people willing to treat you with the false respect you think you deserve, you don't need me.

And everything you get, you'll deserve it.

> No, my argument was that "same amount of traffic" is obviously a meaningless metric.

It's not meaningless. It's what was agreed upon.

How would you like it if someone made a deal with you, and then a few months later wants to change it because "hey that stuff we agreed to is meaningless"?

Seriously, what the fuck would that even mean? It would be nothing more than someone trying to bully you.

No judge would rule in that guy's favor. If (when) it made it to court, the judge would say "this is not meaningless, it is what was agreed to in the contract".

When you say "meaningless", what you're saying is "I don't give a shit about the agreement, I just want things my way".

The real world doesn't work like this.

> Settlement-free peering fits when there is roughly equal levels of value derived from the traffic.

Yes. And when that is not the case, one party either pays the other... or they stop peering.

You get that right? Comcast has more than one peer. They don't need Level 3. As others have said in replies to my own comments, no one is going to dump Comcast over that, so Comcast wouldn't have much to lose except some bad press.

[dllthomas]

I'm not asking you to stroke my ego (or anything else). I'm asking you not to be a dick, because this forum is of most use to everyone when people aren't needlessly dicks. I'm done here, per my earlier statements.

[click170]

> Level 3 isn't paying. You're absolutely right, Comcast doesn't want those. If you want them despite this, then the onus is on you to connect to Level 3 directly.

When Comcast stops advertising an Internet connection and starts advertising a "connection to the Comcast network", then you'll have a leg to stand on.

Until then, here's your sign.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> When Comcast stops advertising an Internet connection and starts advertising a "connection to the Comcast network"

So you don't know what "internet" is either. That figures. It's just a magic computer thingy that let's you watch german scat porn and cat pics on Facebook.