[msandford]

Sure. Here's the relevant info from Netflix.

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306

So you can see that they recommend 3Mbps for SD and 5Mbps for HD.

The problem is that the ISP has promised 50Mbps per customer to said customer, but then they are not allocating enough resources at various points throughout their network to actually deliver on 5Mbps per customer to Cogent or Level3. Ostensibly Cogent and Level3 can handle the upgrade and increased bandwidth, and ostensibly the ISPs internal network can handle the increased bandwidth, the congestion was at a number of peering points only. Those were the bottlenecks.

This doesn't JUST affect Netflix customers, but in fact ANY traffic that runs from Cogent or Level3 to the ISPs customer or vice versa. It just so happens that A LOT of that traffic is Netflix, but it's not EXCLUSIVELY Netflix. There are a great many people that buy transit from Cogent and Level3, meaning that ISPs are harming more than simply Netflix customers but ALL their customers.

Please understand that if the ISP isn't making an effort to ensure that their peering arrangements are sufficient to satisfy the demands of their customers, that is the ISPs fault, and not the counterparty's fault. Especially when the counterparty is willing to make the necessary upgrades to relieve the congestion, and the ISP is not because the ISP wants to get paid for it.

Remember that the ISP is the one that's offered highly asymmetric internet access to their customers. They should not be surprised that their customers utilize said service in an asymmetric fashion. Failing to upgrade the peering connection isn't "standard operating procedure" for a consumer-facing ISP. It's that ISP doing something highly unusual because they think they can get away with it.

[ikeboy]

> Failing to upgrade the peering connection isn't "standard operating procedure" for a consumer-facing ISP.

This seems to be the main point of departure for us. If you could show that large consumer-facing ISPs used to give free peering even when the other side was sending much more data than they were, then I'd agree with you. The ISPs claim it is standard for someone sending more data to pay. Can you show otherwise?

[msandford]

Consumer-facing ISPs have generally arranged their business around a highly-asymmetric, consumer-pays model. Right? If I want more download, I have to pay more. I don't get free, unlimited "as much as I want" downloads, and only pay for the uploads, right? So for a consumer ISP, the principle is "receiver pays"

For a commercial, content producers, the model is "sender pays" which makes sense. That's why hosting companies buy transit from Level3, Cogent, etc. They're paying to send.

What's happened is that Netflix has already paid to send, and ISP customers have already paid to receive, and ISPs have said "yeah that's fine, but if you REALLY want to send, you're going to have to pay AGAIN"

That's the sticking point.

Nobody's arguing that anyone should get a free ability to send, or a free ability to receive. All traffic is generally double billed, once for the sender's connection and once for the receiver's connection.

The "innovation" here is that some ISPs have decided that SOME traffic should be TRIPLE billed. Once at the sender, once at the receiver, and a third time when it crosses from the sender's network to the receiver's network.

Why, if triple billing is OK, should only the consumer ISPs be allowed to do it? Why doesn't Cogent or Level3 charge consumer ISPs extra for receiving more than they're sending? Under the consumer ISPs model of "receiver pays" it would be entirely reasonable for Cogent or Level3 to charge extra, wouldn't it?

You're basically arguing that the way consumer ISPs handle this is acceptable. OK. Why isn't the exact opposite also acceptable? It's not as though most consumer ISPs have a global transit network! They're the ones that desperately need more download than upload to satisfy their highly asymmetrically provisioned customer connections, right?

Ultimately the problem here is that there are several analytical frameworks that one can use to decide who is the asshole here and who is the saint.

Given that I'm held captive by my consumer ISP and have a fair amount of choice over what content I subscribe to, I'm more inclined to believe that the consumer ISPs are abusing their power over the content providers. I don't have pleasant interactions with them basically ever so I can't see why I would extend them the benefit of the doubt.

[ikeboy]

>Under the consumer ISPs model of "receiver pays" it would be entirely reasonable for Cogent or Level3 to charge extra, wouldn't it?

Right now, they want to send to the ISP more than the ISP wants the data. So they have to pay. If they wanted to charge, the ISPs would say "sorry".

And you sort of ignored my question. You claimed above that paid peering for asymmetrical connections was not standard practice. I want you to source that, because the ISPs claim it always was standard practice.

>Ultimately the problem here is that there are several analytical frameworks that one can use to decide who is the asshole here and who is the saint.

That's why it's better to let everyone bargain it out amongst themselves. If it's important to netflix to have a faster connection, they'll pay for it. If it's important for the ISP to have a faster connection, they'll pay. In a free market, the resources should flow to whoever needs them most. (I believe that's the Coase theorem.)

[msandford]

> That's why it's better to let everyone bargain it out amongst themselves. ... In a free market, the resources should flow to whoever needs them most.

If I had the opportunity to ditch my ISP who wants to throttle Netflix through underhanded, shady tactics I WOULD ABSOLUTELY DO SO!

But the various entities were granted regional monopolies on certain wire plants like coax and utp and those huge, huge, huge advantages have yet to be leveled by the same entities that enacted the laws which caused them.

If I had the option to choose from at least say 5-10 different ISPs and some of them did what Comcast, Verizon and AT&T choose to do and other did not, I would vote with my wallet and choose a provider who does not engage in such tactics. This would cause those providers to lose customers and eventually, those providers to reconsider their "paid peering" stance. Or not! But I wouldn't be subject to the whims of a few business folk at a company that I have no practical way to influence.

As it stands, I do not have that choice. So I'm not terribly opposed to various ISPs being told through various means to play nice or have their toys taken away.

But given that I don't have any kind of real choice (duopoly at best and I'm in a major metro area!) it's kind of disingenuous to say "the free market knows best!" when there is in fact not a free market. Free the market up and let people duke it out. But don't pretend that the un-free-ness of the market somehow doesn't exist just because there are multiple long-haul transit providers.

[ikeboy]

I'm not talking about the market between you and your ISP, which I agree is not very free. I'm talking about the market between the ISP and the other ISP, or between an ISP and a CDN. I think every participant should be allowed to make their own decision whether to pay, and the other side shouldn't be forced to carry traffic it isn't paid for from that side.

I've argued elsewhere that throttling based on content shouldn't be allowed for reasons similar to what you're saying, but I don't want to extend that to paid peering or prioritization.

[msandford]

> I'm not talking about the market between you and your ISP, which I agree is not very free.

Right, but those two issues are for me, inseparable. If I don't have the freedom to choose my ISP and my ISP doesn't take my opinion into account when making business decisions, then I have no recourse.

If there were other ISPs for me to choose from, then I'm all for absolutely ZERO laws about net neutrality because then actual market forces can actually go to work.

Market forces on the consumer side of consumer ISPs can directly influence the happenings on the peering side of consumer ISPs.

> I think every participant should be allowed to make their own decision whether to pay, and the other side shouldn't be forced to carry traffic it isn't paid for from that side.

Sure, so now Cogent and Level3 can demand $100/Mbps/mo from Comcast right? Because without buying global transit, it's not really INTERNET, it's just Comcast. What if all the transit providers decided that those were the new rules? Would Comcast have any alternative?

What if these transit providers all got together and agreed that none of them would offer Comcast global transit for less than $100/Mbps/mo? Would that be OK? I mean, Comcast has highly asymmetric flows right? They should be allowed to do this, shouldn't they?

Because as it stands right now, I've got a million Comcasts I can choose from, but they've all agreed with one another that the pricing is the same no matter which one I pick. If Comcast can hold me hostage, why can't the transit providers all agree to hold Comcast hostage?