| > 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. |
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.