If it allows paid fast lanes, then clearly it allows degradation.
Regular customers will just see their quality drop for the same price. Web sites will have to pay for the bandwith their customer already paid for to their ISP.
It's going to suck.
Hope this never happens in France, but our leaders love to copy the worst decisions taken in the US so...
Everyone gets the same coverage except premium customers. Then degrade that base degree of coverage. Boom.
Think of it as QoS based on a list of sites provided by the ISP.
White-list only after the first few gigabytes is already happening. It's called zero-rating.
There is no such thing as "surplus bandwidth". How much bandwidth there is is as much the decision of the ISP as what gets prioritized or throttled. If you make it illegal to throttle below available bandwidth, they will simply reduce available bandwidth (or even simpler, fail to increase available bandwidth).
If there is more than one way to achieve the exact same result at exactly the same cost, it's completely pointless to make one of the ways illegal.
And there were plenty of people who voted for President Obama but voted for Trump. 13% of 2012 Obama voters voted for Trump in 2016.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-h...
I strongly agree with the rest of your post.
I think you could easily give supporters in this realm, that aren't quite aware of the worst case scenarios people fear about net neutrality repeal, food for thought using news as an example. Comcast for instance owns NBC Universal. If Comcast, often the de facto Internet provider in some areas, decides to favor vertical integration in news and "prioritize their outlets"... let's just say that the news outlets NBC Universal owns tend to be exactly opposite of the "parallel news system" outlets you are talking about. :)
I interpreted this as meaning that although you pay for 10mb/s Internet, Comcast can offer a special package that allows you to stream Netflix in 4K.
The effective bandwidth of the internet looks like an hour glass. As things fan out to individual users you may have capacity for 100+mbps but no way to consume it because upstream there is a bottleneck. In many cases that bottleneck exists at the edge of an ISP or farther upstream of it. Direct peering increases the capacity of the ISP's "edge" but only for the services available on the peer. Co-location puts those services on the internal side of the bottleneck, again increasing effective capacity, but only for the services that are co-located in the ISPs datacenters. Almost all major providers (google, akamai, netflix, facebook) offer some form of co-locatable server however, those cost money to deploy and maintain.
It doesn't have to be "actively" slowing down traffic to be degraded. If ISPs can go faster, and they choose not to unless you pay more, that is a form of degradation. One of many forms the degradation could come in is ISPs failing to build out faster networks until people are paying higher prices. Service can be allowed to degrade over time by simply not doing anything unless you pay more money.
If Netflix did not have PNIs to Comcast, Comcast internet would have been unusable for everyone.
[Edit: Post more downvotes]
Guess what happens to the Netflix traffic when the best route to Netflix is over Comcast transit?
Only under the assumption that Comcast makes no attempt to do their job properly and uphold their contractual obligations by implementing reasonable QoS measures and upgrading their capacity. You can't point to Comcast's extortionist refusal to upgrade their links to the outside world and say that it's Netflix's fault; that was just their abusive tactic to force Netflix to deal with Comcast directly on Comcast's terms. Verizon did the same thing.
You've missed my point. There are some ways an ISP can go faster that are not neutral AND not malicious/extortive. If google puts a GGC on your ISPs network, youtube now has an advantage over hulu. There is no equivalent internal-deployment that can give a truly neutral increase in capacity.
To conflate this with active degradation (throttling or blocking) means that you would have an ISP be unable to host any service until they can guarantee _all services_ equivalent access (presumably at the ISPs expense otherwise they would price out everyone but the big players).
Before you immediately chose "neutral hosting" realize that it is untenable for every random small website to be able to legally demand any ISPs host their services for free in order to guarantee a level playing field with Google and Netflix. The only tenable solution is to make it illegal to collocate services which will be a far worse hit to the experience you have on the web than any throttling or blocking has ever been.
This is not as simple as you would like it to be.
> If ISPs can go faster, and they choose not to unless you pay more, that is a form of degradation
This is assuming intent and over-simplifying. Is a small regional ISP without the capital or credit necessary to expand now anti-NN by default? Are they extorting their customers by default? Not all ISPs are Comcast and Verizon. If you cannot escape your circumstance and see the bigger picture of how and what the internet is and who "ISPs" are then you are just being selfish.
We need laws or regulations to address the fact that ISPs are actually forcing content providers to deploy in-network CDN nodes with the ISPs through extortive refusal to upgrade the links between the residential ISPs and the ISPs serving Netflix et al. Some deployment of local CDN nodes makes sense on its own and benefits both parties, but it's not like video streaming is actually latency-sensitive or anything.
This is a textbook lobbyist argument -- something which is technically true without doing the math.
A 10Gbps port on a switch is maybe $100. Say it can service a hundred customers, so $1/customer, and has a lifetime of two years. So $0.04/customer/month.
These are very conservative numbers. In reality it doesn't even cost that much.
The fact that the ports go to different places is irrelevant in the aggregate, because there is no need to add a port when the existing links to that peer aren't at capacity. And it's not as though the fact that Netflix and Google have separate ports would allow a 100Mbps customer to get 100Mbps from each of them at the same time.
Colocation is independent of this. If anyone with traffic could get peering at cost (i.e. ~free), they might still do it or might not, but then the ISP would have to charge market rates for space and power instead of monopoly prices because they're really charging for gatekeeper access to customers.
and assume that the two edge routers are just switches
and we would use a consumer level 10gbps port
and that the switchers are already in the same rack in the same facility
and that that rack in that facility has direct access to our distribution PoP
and that there are no firewall rules that need to be in place on that port (they can be in the DMZ sure)
and that we don't need to monitor that connection
and that we don't need that connection to be redundant at all
and that we aren't going to use a routing protocol like BGP on that port (we will just hard code routes)
and that we don't want any guarantee that you and I will operate that link at any SLA
and that we don't want to guarantee that both parties will give notice in a timely manner before termination
and... and... and...
So, which textbook are you copying from? You put out something that is technically true without considering any of the practical realities.
(edited for readability)
Do the actual math. Show me something with an aggregate cost of more than, say, $1/month/customer.
Especially using realistic numbers rather than the "10Gbps port for a hundred 100Mbps customers" ones I gave to make a point.
You first. You made a claim which was woefully inaccurate, I called you out in an admittedly childish way and now the burden of proving you wrong is on me?
Here is my ballpark, Both sides will want redundant fiber connections between two edge routers at 10gbps. SFP+ 10g from cisco is ~60 bucks. We need at least 4 (2 on each side), plus a reserve of 4 for faster recovery from failure. In addition, lets assume that we amortize some cost of the _edge router_ for this service. A refurb 16 port SFP+ module for 10g fiber is around $6000 and we will need 2 of them in 2 separate chassis on EACH SIDE and lease Colo space for it but we will amortize it. So, $6k + $1k for the chassis + $800 for the supervisor card. to lease space for this: $1000k/month per chassis(5u at 200/u in a major market carrier hotel) / 16. We need cabling too but lets assume thats commodity.
up front costs so far:
$60 (sfp modules) * 8 = 480
$7800 edge router * 4 / 16 = 1950
so $2430 for equipement (amortized)
1k/month/chasis = 4k/month / 16 = 250/month recurring
100 customers over 2 years = 1950 + 6000 / 100 / 24 = $3.31/month/customer before we even talk about monitoring/maintenance/legal/etc
I have not even begun to dig into the practical costs, and I'm at 3x your target. Your move.
Which is still using the numbers where equipment only lasts two years and you're expecting 100% continuous usage from all customers. And even using all these ridiculous numbers it's still only $3.31/month per customer. If we adopted a 10:1 oversubscription rate (which is still conservative) it would be $0.33/month even with you setting money on fire, having the ISP pay for both sides, and using full double redundancy rather than some kind of N+1 or N+M.
Peering is just not a major cost for ISPs.
The ISP doesn't pay both sides, but someone pays somewhere. So, if we are talking about the "cost of peering" it doesn't serve to talk about it from only one side.
You can get more than 16 ports in the 5u unit, so rent is probably under-amortized but not by the two order of magnitudes that would make up the difference between my estimate and your original.
Peering is not a major cost for ISPs because ISPs don't have a lot of peers. As more services want direct peering relationships, there are some overhead costs which go up to manage the explosion of peering relationships.
My initial objection was that you over-simplified. I feel pretty fine resting on my argument as is. You may have the last word. I cede all my remaining time to whomever wants it.
But we're talking about the cost of peering paid by the ISP, because the ISP doesn't have to cover costs paid by somebody else and no one else is objecting to paying their part of it.
> You can get more than 16 ports in the 5u unit, so rent is probably under-amortized but not by the two order of magnitudes that would make up the difference between my estimate and your original.
Juniper MX240 supports 80 10GbE ports in 5U. Cisco's product search is lame but I expect they have something similar too.
> Peering is not a major cost for ISPs because ISPs don't have a lot of peers. As more services want direct peering relationships, there are some overhead costs which go up to manage the explosion of peering relationships.
That isn't necessarily true either. Only the major transit providers and CDNs like Level 3 and Akamai and the major players like Google that are so big they're effectively their own transit provider/CDN have any interesting peering.
All the smaller players get connected through one of the transit providers, because Joe's Website only wants to hook up from wherever Joe's servers are, not at every carrier hotel in the world like Google does. So they pay a transit provider to handle that and the ISP only has to deal with the transit provider.
The problem comes when the ISPs want to charge major transit providers monopoly rents for peering (which they would have to pass on), or refuse to upgrade the links to them when they're saturated in order to force their big customers (like Netflix at one point) to pay monopoly rents for peering directly.
> My initial objection was that you over-simplified.
It's supposed to be a simplification. The point isn't to make a full accounting, it's to compare orders of magnitude. Even using your numbers with unrealistically conservative assumptions about everything, they're still a single digit percentage of the typical customer's bill.