| "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. |
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.