No, I'm being specific about what Comcast should be obliged to do. If you bring fiber to their regional NOC they should have to deliver the traffic to their regional customers. It doesn't matter what Netflix is actually doing right now -- they probably wouldn't be doing it if Comcast hadn't made it a requirement for high bandwidth access to their customers.
> And there is a very real difference between peering agreements and throttling. The effect in both cases is slower Netflix, but they are completely different, from a technology and practical standpoint.
No they aren't, they're completely identical. There is utterly no difference between throttling a port down to 100Mbps and intentionally using a 100Mbps port. The only thing you can even argue is that in theory a 10Gbps port would be more expensive, but it's more expensive by an amortized annual cost of something like $50. It's a negligible amount of money which is several orders of magnitude off from what Comcast wants to charge for peering.
I'm honestly having a hard time understanding what you're talking about because Netflix is not bringing fiber to Comcast's regional NOC, nor is Comcast performing any traffic shaping whatsoever on Netflix traffic when they're not honoring their peering agreement.
Literally neither of the things you said should be forced to happen have been requested by Netflix or Comcast.
Netflix didn't want to pay anything for housing Netflix's server in Comcast's datacenter, rather than continue to pay Comcast for their peering agreement and network upgrades required to honor their peering agreement.
Comcast said "no", and stopped peering with Netflix (very briefly was this actually happening, Netflix quickly acquiesced). This sent Netflix's traffic to Comcast users over the greater Internet, which is slower. THIS rerouting is what caused the slowdown, not any slowing via network devices. The Internet, as a whole, is slower than a direct connection between Comcast and Netflix. That's the whole reason for peering agreements, after all. Comcast never targeted Netflix with any kind of slowness, with hardware or software.
So again, I'm confused why you think this has anything to do with "running fiber" or "intentionally using a 100Mbps port". Neither of those things have happened.
Maybe the reason you're confused is that at this level, peering is the internet. Comcast has a NOC that terminates connections going to its last mile customers and then peers with other networks. There is no separate "the internet" here, there are only peering connections to Netflix, Level 3, Google, etc.
So if Comcast doesn't peer with Netflix then the only way for Netflix traffic to get to Comcast customers is to travel via some network Comcast does peer with, like Level 3. The problem is, this gives Comcast monopoly power. However much Netflix traffic has to get from Netflix to Comcast customers, so regardless of which peer that traffic comes through, Comcast absent regulation can charge them monopoly rents in exchange for not having a link which is too slow to carry the traffic.
There is no inherent need for Netflix servers to be anywhere near Comcast. Netflix could put their servers in Amazon and pay Level 3 to deliver the traffic to Comcast, which is what they used to do. The problem is then Comcast can charge Level 3 the monopoly rents which Level 3 would then have to pass on and make the arrangement unprofitable, which is what Comcast wants because then Netflix is forced to buy those services from Comcast at higher prices.
Now suppose Comcast has to do free peering with anybody. Then Level 3 can get free peering (i.e. bring fiber to Comcast) and Netflix can pay Amazon and Level 3 (or Microsoft and Cogent or anybody else). They can even continue buying from Comcast, but would only do that if Comcast charges competitive rates instead of monopoly rents -- which is the whole point.
Yes, that's true, but again, this is all very different from throttling.
The person I replied to asked if Netflix is able to stop paying Comcast. I responded that, since refusing a peering agreement is not the same as throttling, the implication is Netflix will likely continue to have to pay Comcast.
I fail to see how any of what you've written here has much to do with your claim that peering agreements and throttling are the same thing.
To be clear to anyone else reading this, they absolutely are not. They're just literally different terms for different things. From Wikipedia:
> Bandwidth throttling is the intentional slowing of Internet service by an Internet service provider. [0]
> In computer networking, peering is a voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the users of each network. [1]
You said that peering agreements and throttling are "completely identical". I guess you should start making the argument to Wikipedia to merge the two pages, then?
> You said that peering agreements and throttling are "completely identical".
Not throttling and peering arrangements (with unrestricted bandwidth) are completely identical. Or if you want to be pedantic, not peering (or peering at limited bandwidth) is a type of throttling.
No, because putting someone on a 100mbps pipe is not throttling them. Limiting that pipe to 50mbps is, however, throttling, according to the definition given by Wikipedia, and the definitions given by the FCC and upheld in court today.
Comcast has a pipe that goes to the last mile which is capable of 10Gbps+. Netflix or Level 3 have a pipe coming into Comcast which is capable of 10Gbps+. Comcast puts a thing in in between which is not a pipe, it's a device, and it transfers data at some lower speed. Or zero.
That's what throttling is. A device between two fast pipes that lowers the speed they can exchange data.
> That's also not at all what peering agreements are.
Peering agreements mean plugging the pipes into the device. Not having peering agreements means unplugging some of the capacity, which has the effect of throttling.
I'm not really sure why you're so insistent on this sophistry. There are pipes with enough capacity from Netflix to Comcast. There are pipes with enough capacity from Comcast to its customers. Anything they do in that Comcast building which prevents the traffic from flowing at full speed is going to be equivalent to throttling.
This has all been in an effort to answer the question, "Will Comcast be forced to peer with Netflix without having Netflix pay as a result of this ruling?" and the answer is no. Comcast will continue to be able to charge Netflix for their peering agreement.
You claimed this wasn't true, and you are wrong. I don't want anyone to get the incorrect idea that what you're saying is correct, because it is in no way true. No one (not Netflix, Comcast, the US government, or Wikipedia) but you considers peering agreements (or not having them) to be "literally the same" as throttling.
So now you seem to have given up on the idea that having a NOC where two fast pipes come in and you arrange to prevent them from passing traffic at high speed is not throttling, and are now making some different (and also wrong) claim.
This ruling was about whether the FCC has the authority to regulate ISPs as telecommunications carriers. It seems that they do. Which presumably means that the FCC could require last mile providers to do free peering. And they should, even though they haven't yet.
Again, no. You continue to conflate your ideology with what this ruling actually did.
This ruling was specific, and its specific nature did not preclude Comcast from continuing to enter into paid-for peering agreements with Netflix. You are wrong to say or imply that Netflix will now, as a result of this ruling, be able to peer with Comcast for free.
> No, I'm being specific about what Comcast should be obliged to do.
What I don't see is anything from me that says "Netflix will now, as a result of this ruling, be able to peer with Comcast for free."
The closest you can come to that is this:
> Comcast just can't charge them for access to the last mile, and neither can it charge anybody else (like the transit providers who provide service to the little guy).
But that was in response to a post hypothesizing that Netflix getting free peering would be problematic, i.e. argued under the hypothetical that that policy was in effect.
> Throttling and peering (or not peering) are not the same thing. You said they were. You were/are wrong.
Not peering is still throttling.
> If throttling and (not) peering are the same thing, then Comcast would be forced to peer with Netflix for free. They couldn't not do it.
They would be forced to peer with Netflix, not necessarily for free. That's the problematic part of the rule that needs to be fixed, because it allows Comcast to charge monopoly rents for peering even though peering has minimal costs.
Are you honestly arguing that if Comcast refused to connect Netflix (or anyone with sufficient bandwidth for Netflix) to Comcast customers at any price, that wouldn't be throttling and wouldn't get Comcast in trouble?
Throttling and peering (or not peering) are not the same thing. You said they were. You were/are wrong.
This ruling upholds the FCC's prohibition on throttling content.
If throttling and (not) peering are the same thing, then Comcast would be forced to peer with Netflix for free. They couldn't not do it.
Therefore, you are arguing that Netflix will be able to peer with Comcast for free, even if you aren't actually saying those words.
This is untrue. Netflix is not going to be able to peer with Comcast for free. You were and are wrong.
No strawman, just you trying very hard not to be wrong.
The thing that amazes me is that the only part you have the potential to be right about is the part you think is the absurdity.
I haven't intended to take a position on what the FCC rule actually does because it's 200 pages of legalese, which is enough to make "objectively wrong" an impossibility. There is enough there for some pedantic jackass to argue anything about anything and the only way to sort it out is another court opinion about specifically that thing. What I don't appreciate is you putting words in my mouth. What I've argued is that not peering is throttling, which it is, but not what the legal implications of that would be, which are open to interpretation.
However, the argument you've made that if not peering is throttling then Comcast would have to do free peering is not at all ridiculous. It's just not a sure thing. The ISP would be able to argue that they will do peering just not for free, and then it flips into paid prioritization since prioritization is the opposite of throttling.
That's more moving parts than I would prefer to see. Too many opportunities for the ISP to try to weasel out of it. It would be a lot simpler if the FCC would just say "last mile ISPs are required to do free peering with anyone" and avoid the whole mess. But it's a fair argument that could succeed, and if it did would fit entirely with the spirit of the rule.
Which you seem to think makes that outcome some kind of an impossibility, but with reasoning no more substantial than "you're wrong" over and over again with no coherent justification.
No, I'm being specific about what Comcast should be obliged to do. If you bring fiber to their regional NOC they should have to deliver the traffic to their regional customers. It doesn't matter what Netflix is actually doing right now -- they probably wouldn't be doing it if Comcast hadn't made it a requirement for high bandwidth access to their customers.
> And there is a very real difference between peering agreements and throttling. The effect in both cases is slower Netflix, but they are completely different, from a technology and practical standpoint.
No they aren't, they're completely identical. There is utterly no difference between throttling a port down to 100Mbps and intentionally using a 100Mbps port. The only thing you can even argue is that in theory a 10Gbps port would be more expensive, but it's more expensive by an amortized annual cost of something like $50. It's a negligible amount of money which is several orders of magnitude off from what Comcast wants to charge for peering.