The devil is in the details. Ken Florance (http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.html) paints a different picture in his blog, for example.
As a manager at Comcast, can you refer the people on this list to any ISPs who do not have a history of congestion into your network? This question comes up about once a month, absent any good solutions, so insight would be appreciated. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:25 PM, McElearney, Kevin <kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > > > On 7/29/14, 12:45 PM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu" <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> > wrote: > >>On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -0000, "McElearney, Kevin" said: >> >>> (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering >>> your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even >>> bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If >>> eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy >>> objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a >>> direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and >>> some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN). >> >>Very true. But what we're discussing here is the *specific* case where >>eyecandystore's biggest challenge at delivering the experience is an >>external >>challenge, namely that $IP_PROVIDER's service sucks. It's particularly >>galling when $IP_PROVIDER's internal net is actually up to snuff, but they >>engage in shakedown tactics to upgrade peering points. > > > There is a great analysis by Dr Clark (MIT) and CAIDA which shows while > there are some challenged paths and relationships between providers, this > is the exception vs the rule. Using the “exceptions" are business > decisions. > > Performance is a two way street (as are shakedowns) > > - Kevin >