I guess what I'm trying to do is understand the rationale behind your argument of "sender pays" and who is "consuming bandwidth" because it's not clear to me how things should be measured.
I will sketch out my argument as follows:
1. Data transfer requires mutual consent or else it either a) doesn't happen or b) is considered a network attack
2. On the internet today the majority of transfer flows are asymmetric; regular users download more than they upload. I don't know if this is the natural way of the universe or it happens this way because of the way residential broadband is structured i.e. more download capability than upload
3. People who have more outflow than inflow pay to be connected to the internet (i.e. servers)
4. People who have more inflow than outflow pay to be connected to the internet (i.e. regular users)
5. Somewhere this traffic has to meet in the middle and transition from a network where the sender is paying to the network where the receiver is paying
6. This is typically called a peering point and the transit here is usually settlement-free not because it's usually balanced (though in many cases it is) but because it's the point at which the sender-pays network meets up with the receiver-pays network. In other words the sender pays for the network transit from their servers all the way up to the peering point and the receiver pays for the network transit from the peering point onwards to their house.
7. When looking at the problem this way it's hard for me to determine who is "using" more network bandwidth because again, data is only transferred by the consent of parties on both the sender-pays and receiver-pays network
I understand the argument that Verizon is a Tier 1 ISP and thus deserves to be paid for transit. The Tier 1 ISP is actually Verizon Business a largely separate division of Verizon from Verizon Residential. But Level 3 is also a Tier 1 ISP and thus by that logic also deserves to be paid for transit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network#List_of_tier_1_n...
I also understand the argument that "all peering needs to be roughly equal or else someone needs to pay" but again when company A has customers who send more than they receive and company B has customers who receive more than they send I can't understand why A and B don't agree to let the ratios move away from balanced. I understand historically the ratios were close to even but when they're both selling asymmetric service to their customers why insist on symmetric peering?
EDIT:
From Wikipedia "peering" is sometimes called "sender keeps"
"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. The pure definition of peering is settlement-free, "bill-and-keep," or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other in association with the exchange of traffic; instead, each derives and retains revenue from its own customers."
I don't believe that I am. There is no natural law of the universe (like gravity or electromagnetism) that says that peering MUST be symmetric or roughly symmetric.
A symmetric or roughly symmetric peering arrangement naturally arises when two companies which have both traffic producers and consumers on their network interconnect their networks at a peering point. But if one network operator doesn't have the right mix of producers and consumers on their own network the balance can get pushed in one direction or the other.
From their website:
"The Peering Coordinator Community put on a debate on the rationality of peering ratios as a peering discriminator at NANOG 35 in Los Angeles. During that debate, and during the subsequent informal debates afterwards, the consensus was that this metric was neither technically sound nor business rational."
Peering isn't about getting exactly identical amounts of traffic both ways. A lot of times that is the outcome, but it is NOT required.
Peering is about the point at which two companies interconnect in such a way as to keep their paying customers happy without incurring additional expenses.
Please read (and re-read if necessary) that page and look at the diagrams and make sure that you understand them before you continue to comment on this topic. Your comments thus far indicate that you don't really understand how networks work. It sounds like you've heard "peering" before and kinda understand what it means. And this dispute between Level3 and Verizon doesn't fit into the neat and tidy little "peering is symmetric" box that a naive understanding of peering would yield. I am sorry if this sounds condescending but you're making a lot of posts with no real bearing on what's actually happening or why.
> Peering is about the point at which two companies interconnect in such a way as to keep their paying customers happy without incurring additional expenses.
This summarizes it. Both sides at one time were happy, now one side is not due to uneven network usage (which they consider an additional expense).
That is all.
Unfortunately this whole thread will go round and round forever because many on HN believe no matter what Verizon / Comcast, etc do is automatically evil, and nothing will change that.
> This summarizes it. Both sides at one time were happy, now one side is not due to uneven network usage (which they consider an additional expense).
"which they consider an additional expense"
Verizon can CONSIDER it an additional expense all they like. But it is a cost of doing business that they took upon themselves as a result of the service which they have sold to their customers.
Verizon has only incurred this cost because they advertise and sell asymmetric internet connections to their customers. Which their customers then expect to be able to "collect" on, so to speak.
"keep their paying customers happy"
In this case we can see that Verizon is not acting to keep their paying customers happy. Level3 was never a paying customer of Verizon. Verizon Residential subscribers have been and continue to be customers of Verizon.
What Verizon is arguing is that Level3 should become a paying customer of Verizon in order for Verizon to be willing to spend the money required to keep Verizon's already paying customers happy.
You might call that "double charging" or "abusing monopoly power" or perhaps even "holding their own customers hostage" but I can't see how you can call it "perfectly rational".
I don't think that Comcast or Verizon are inherently evil. I've had good experiences doing business with both on the commercial side.
But when they deliberately throttle their customers network connections at peering points for the sake of extracting additional money from content providers because they have a monopoly over their residential customers I can't help but get at least a little bit upset.
If there were viable alternative choices for broadband, let them do whatever they want. I can always switch away from them to someone who provides me with better service. But when they actively lobby to prevent municipalities from constructing their own broadband networks (which would provide competition) and when they actively lobby to get the FCC to change the rules to favor themselves over consumers BY LAW I also have a problem.
Introduce enough competition into the marketplace and I don't care what any one particular player does. But lacking that competition I can't help but pass judgement on those who do not play fair.
I will sketch out my argument as follows:
1. Data transfer requires mutual consent or else it either a) doesn't happen or b) is considered a network attack
2. On the internet today the majority of transfer flows are asymmetric; regular users download more than they upload. I don't know if this is the natural way of the universe or it happens this way because of the way residential broadband is structured i.e. more download capability than upload
3. People who have more outflow than inflow pay to be connected to the internet (i.e. servers)
4. People who have more inflow than outflow pay to be connected to the internet (i.e. regular users)
5. Somewhere this traffic has to meet in the middle and transition from a network where the sender is paying to the network where the receiver is paying
6. This is typically called a peering point and the transit here is usually settlement-free not because it's usually balanced (though in many cases it is) but because it's the point at which the sender-pays network meets up with the receiver-pays network. In other words the sender pays for the network transit from their servers all the way up to the peering point and the receiver pays for the network transit from the peering point onwards to their house.
7. When looking at the problem this way it's hard for me to determine who is "using" more network bandwidth because again, data is only transferred by the consent of parties on both the sender-pays and receiver-pays network
I understand the argument that Verizon is a Tier 1 ISP and thus deserves to be paid for transit. The Tier 1 ISP is actually Verizon Business a largely separate division of Verizon from Verizon Residential. But Level 3 is also a Tier 1 ISP and thus by that logic also deserves to be paid for transit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network#List_of_tier_1_n...
I also understand the argument that "all peering needs to be roughly equal or else someone needs to pay" but again when company A has customers who send more than they receive and company B has customers who receive more than they send I can't understand why A and B don't agree to let the ratios move away from balanced. I understand historically the ratios were close to even but when they're both selling asymmetric service to their customers why insist on symmetric peering?
EDIT:
From Wikipedia "peering" is sometimes called "sender keeps"
"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. The pure definition of peering is settlement-free, "bill-and-keep," or "sender keeps all," meaning that neither party pays the other in association with the exchange of traffic; instead, each derives and retains revenue from its own customers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering