Okay this thread looked like it was going off the rails fast. I stopped reading so forgive me if this was already mentioned.
Your models of network infrastructure do not take into account edge located CDN from YouTube or Netflix. They may well have content servers sitting at your ISP. We are all assuming that all servers and network infrastructure is configured correctly and performing within the expected variance. There was a hack for youtube a while back on Comcast, you blocked an internal Comcast netblock in your firewall or router, and youtube sped up dramatically. Why? Slow Comcast YouTube edge cache servers. On Jul 22, 2014 9:02 PM, "Derek Balling" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Phil Pennock < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2014-07-22 at 11:58 -0400, Derek Balling wrote: > >> Or -- IF YOU WANT THAT CHOICE -- (as with electric companies), you pay > more for the more expensive solutions. So if you want the IP packets that > are costing Verizon more money because they're coming from that way > overloaded peering point that requires constant care and feeding, you pay > more. > > > > We are paying more. > > No, I mean more than you do now. > > > That's why the big ISPs have 99% profit margin on their Internet > offerings. > > Citation for that? Because my understanding from folks I know at "big > ISPs" runs 180ยบ counter to that. > > > If it's congestion-based, it might be reasonable. It would lead to > > market pressure. But there's no market, since 2000/2001 when wireline > > connectivity providers were declassified. I was at a Dutch ISP and we > > got to watch in horror as the US ISP market was mostly destroyed, with > > independent ISPs no longer able to get lines at reasonable prices. It > > was illuminating to observe how, over the subsequent six years, the > > network speeds we could offer kept going up (we had to compete in a > > tight market, but we could apply pressure onto the DSL line providers) > > while the speeds in the USA did not take long to start stagnating. > > God bless the government granted monopolies, right? > > > > >> 3.) ISPs simply say "screw it" and freeze the investment in > architecture in place and don't put another dime into it. If you think > that's unlikely, ask yourself "when was the last FIOS city rolled out most > recently?" Answer: YEARS AGO because VZN has already done the math and > realized that IP traffic on FIOS scale is a LOSING PROPOSITION for them. If > your town doesn't have Verizon FIOS today, it never will. EVEN IF they've > already run the fiber for it. Because lighting up that fiber means > incurring a customer base that they lose money on. Better to write off the > CapEx than to have to write off the CapEx **and** take monthly OpEx losses > on it as well. > > > > Actually, I live in Pittsburgh, PA, and FiOS is continuing to roll out > > here. > > Pittsburgh PA *had* FIOS prior to the freeze, so it will continue to be > available to customers in Pittsburgh. > > But, for instance, the town I live in. The fiber is run, it's on every > pole throughout the town, but it will never be lit up, because it's never > been offered in our market. > > > The explanation I've heard (so no, I do not know this > > first-hand) is that the city negotiated the contract for the > > rights-of-way competently, so that not only is there a requirement to > > reach the whole city, and not only are there penalty clauses, but the > > penalty clauses are on a _renewing_ basis, not one-time, so for as long > > as the city doesn't have ~complete coverage, Verizon keep paying fines, > > hefty enough to actually show up on the bottom line. Apparently, the > > deadline is the end of this year, and it was last year that Verizon > > realized they actually had to deliver and suddenly started back up the > > roll-out. > > I'm interpreting this as "they're lighting up the additional COs within > the city of Pittsburgh, because that's how Pittsburgh negotiated" which > doesn't run counter to my assertion (and the well documented) freeze on > FIOS rollouts in new municipalities. If that differs from reality, please > increase the level of detail. :-) > > > I know that Verizon's sales people were utterly uninterested in > > acknowledging that there was FiOS passing my house and uninterested in > > making a sale (which tells you something about the level of market > > forces actually in play) and this persisted, until the head of the > > redevelopment corp went and shouted at Verizon on our behalf; the city > > apparently did not appreciate having the values of property in their > > redevelopment project being hurt by Verizon being unwilling to update > > their database. (Yes, I had explicitly asked about FiOS availability > > when we purchased the house.) > > Because VZN knows they'll lose money on you. Almost guaranteed. They are > utterly demotivated from taking on customers for the product. > > D > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
