Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Dave Täht quoted in the ACLU blog

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

A little out of context. I'd had a string of private convos with
robert trying to explain how peering worked before he'd written the
wired article, trying to get him to understand aqm and fair queuing
also.

As for the key misconception in the debate between level3, netflix, and isps...

 What I basically had said was that "the service provider, netflix in
this instance, had to pay someone to host their servers, cover the
cost of electricity and the cost of a port on big fat ethernet switch,
and it didn't matter if they paid a middleman like level3 for the
connectivity, OR an ISP that hosted the box on their internal
network."

It happens to be most cost-effective, if you have enough traffic, to
co-locate with the ISP. AND, in most cases, since that's cheaper to
the ISP than a middleman, ISPs have traditionally offered rack space
for free and the service provider covered the cost of the hardware,
the ISP is already getting paid by the customer, and the requirements
of the hardware and related capex and maintence costs by the service
provider.

Now, an argument can be made that the service provider  should also
pay for the rack space and electricity to the ISP, the same as if they
were co-located elsewhere and connected to a middleman, - and in *that
case* some regulation in order to ensure a fair market seems
necessary. (but it's also a hassle... and

later on in this debate, gfiber published their policies for
co-locating services like netflix in their datacenters, which made
that point more clearly, and explicitly laid out their policies to the
possible political detriment of the ISPs making the argument above.

 http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/minimizing-buffering.html

Still, the points I made about congestion control, aqm and fair
queuing weren't made with the ACLU and I suppose I should go over
there to make those portions of my points, because the darn fast
lane/slow lane analogy is seriously flawed in general. Internet
traffic looks nothing like vehicular traffic.



On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com> wrote:
> See the second paragraph of:
>
> https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/we-want-internet-providers-respond-internet-demand-not-shape-it
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>



-- 
Dave Täht

NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article