Oh; instead of referring to some bullshit clause in my contract, you're referring to something that's actually irrelevant. That's weird, but okay. I can roll with it.
ISPs probably do reserve the right to negotiate with peers on their terms, but I don't care about that because I'm not paying them to have a certain agreement with peers, I'm paying them for a certain quality of service. If they are not providing that service (an example being giving me 720p Netflix instead of 1080p like I have paid for) then that seems like a pretty straightforward contractual violation. I'm paying for service and not receiving it. Netflix is providing the service to the ISP. I am providing my money to the ISP. Why is the ISP excused from holding up their end of the bargain?
> If they are not providing that service (an example being giving me 720p Netflix instead of 1080p like I have paid for) then that seems like a pretty straightforward contractual violation
But your contract with your ISP most probably does not guarantee you 1080p Netflix instead of 720p. It basically says something equivalent to "we'll give you enough bandwidth for 1080p Netflix whenever we can, but we don't guarantee it, and if you don't get it, there's nothing you can do about it".
Please note that I am not saying the ISPs are the good guys here. I'm just saying that trying to nail them on contractual violations doesn't seem like a fruitful approach to me.
This is turning into a flame war. If you can't see how negotiating peering agreements is relevant to a post whose first sentence begins, "There’s a peering crisis apparently happening right now among American Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and backbone providers..." then I don't know how we can continue...
The crisis, if you've read the article, is that Level3 is getting shunned by 5 of its client ISPs. The ISPs are NOT shunning other backbone providers, just Level3. So yes, this is entirely a contract negotiation between Level3 and 5 ISPs.
This isn't an existential crisis of the Internet, like Level3 is trying to portray it, it's Level3 being shut out of additional business by 5 ISPs because they won't play ball like the other backbone providers.
> The ISPs are NOT shunning other backbone providers, just Level3.
Is this true? Or is Level3 just the only one we know about? As I remember it, the transit provider that was linking Netflix to Comcast before the Comcast-Netflix deal was Cogent, not Level3.
They spent money on upgrading their network, and now that money is going to waste if the ISPs don't make use of the additional bandwidth (for additional money).
ISP customers are not suffering, because L3 is just one of many providers. What content does L3 provide that no one else can? And if that's the case, how is L3 not a monopoly in that respect? Aren't we all calling for more competition in this space anyway?
I guess I'm confused; in one post you're pointing out that I'm getting a month of 720p video instead of 1080p, but now you're saying that I'm not suffering. If my quality of service is being degraded, is that not suffering in the context of this issue? I'm paying for service and yet not getting it. So clearly there IS an issue, because connections are suffering. Are you telling me that ports between L3 and various ISPs are totally saturated and dropping packets while there are other nicely upgraded connections with plenty of bandwidth to spare? Because I'd like to see a source for that claim if so.
L3 doesn't provide unique content; they provide content that ISPs don't have. People ask for that content, L3 tries to provide it, and the ISPs can't accept it. Are you telling me that there other providers and L3 is just shouldering them out of the way? Again, I'd like to see a source for that.
First of all, L3 doesn't actually provide Netflix content, I don't think, so your video stream is unaffected entirely by L3's agreements with any ISP.
Second of all, you have no SLA with your ISP, so your quality of service is, "best effort". If you want an SLA, you have to pay, otherwise you're going to get the best that the ISP can give you, which means some degraded performance. That's what you've paid for. If you want better, pay more money.
Third of all, you really should read the submitted article. It's very clear you haven't. When you do, you'll find that L3 is the only backbone provider not playing ball, and the other backbone providers are paying, which means that there actually are nicely upgraded connections (I don't know about "plenty of bandwidth to spare"), paid for by the network backbone providers.
When you read the article, you'll be much better informed on this topic. I do recommend also reading L3's blog post. There's some good info there, and it provides all the "sourcing" you've asked for.
I've read both the blog post and the linked article. Can you provide specific quotes for the claims? Because the only thing that came close which I saw in either the post or the link was a graph of a different connection which isn't fully saturated, but has very little head room, certainly not enough to handle the spillage that L3 is dealing with. There's a mention of capacity upgrades in the works for that connection, but no specific numbers; it's not clear that the upgraded connection will be large enough to take on the lost packets from L3. And I didn't see anything in there about L3 pushing other providers out of the way.
So like I said; can you provide sources for those claims? Because you also thought the bakery analogy was a good idea, so I'd like to read your primary sources instead of trying to explain myself to you further.
> When you do, you'll find that L3 is the only backbone provider not playing ball
Where does the article say that? It says Level3 is having peering problems, but I don't see anywhere that it says Level3 is the only transit provider having peering problems.
You having a month of 720p instead of 1080p Netflix is worth it to the ISPs instead of raising your service prices by $5 bucks every single month.