A list of ways to “Break the Internet” for the 48 hours before the FCC vote

Re:A list of ways to “Break the Internet” for the 48 hours b... by gknoy on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @06:35PM (#15910575)

Do you want your ISP to charge you extra for the "privilege" of being able to get access to Netflix ("Streaming media package!"), or Twitch ("Esports!"), __in addition__ to any subscriptions you would already pay to Netflix?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A list of ways to “Break the Internet” for the 48 hours b... by openasocket on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @06:42PM (#15910605)

You're misunderstanding me. My point is that a common anti-NN argument is "but Netflix generates so much traffic..." and I'm saying that argument is without merit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A list of ways to “Break the Internet” for the 48 hours b... by lurr on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @07:38PM (#15910939)

The argument that video streaming results in tremendously one way traffic, making peering agreements unfair, seems worth considering.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A list of ways to “Break the Internet” for the 48 hours b... by openasocket on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @07:49PM (#15911010)

I don't understand how traffic directionality affects peering. The path of routers between the client and the server handle all packets. The fact that the source is mostly from one size doesn't affect the load on the routers, they're still handling the same number of packets whether the traffic is symmetric or not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A list of ways to “Break the Internet” for the 48 hours b... by Dylan16807 on Wednesday December 13, 2017 @03:17AM (#15912838)

Unfair to Netflix.

They could send back a whole bunch of zero bytes to make the traffic symmetrical. They save everyone's resources by not doing that, yet somehow that means they should be charged...

The direction of the traffic is meaningless. What matters is the endpoint of the connection. ISPs should be happy to peer with anyone for traffic that has their users as an endpoint.

[ Parent | on HN ]