undefined | Better HN

0 pointssmsm4211y ago0 comments

I'm not sure why Level3 has to pay anything. Let's imagine there's only 4 entities in the world - User, Verizon, Level3 and Netflix. User buys internet access from Verizon and pays. Netflix hosts servers at Level 3. Level 3 has connection to Verizon. User pays Verizon to be able to access Netflix servers. Netflix pays Level 3 to deliver content up to Verizon. Why when the data crosses between Level3 and Verizon Level3 should pay anything? Verizon has been already paid by the user to deliver the data. That's like a taxi driver demanding payment from the restaurant since he brings them clients. Clients already paid for being brought to the restaurant, that's the whole reason they hired taxi in the first place, and demanding payment from the restaurant sounds like a racket to me. And a fraud towards the users which expect the provider to perform their obligations, not to use them as bargaining chip to extort other businesses.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

danielweber11y ago· 1 in thread

If there were only 4 entities, your description would make perfect sense. It's a waterfall model, where the data only falls from Netflix to Level3 to Verizon to User.

But the Internet is a big hierarchy where things flow downhill. Every node can talk with every other node. Historically the networks would trade data freely if they were both doing an equal amount, but even 15 years ago I heard sober network engineers worrying that in the future there might be very unbalanced connections and what would be the fair way to deal with that.

NB: In the end I think Verizon is being purposefully difficult to their customers, but they are not completely unreasonable to think that having a lot of data sent into their networks [1] is just something they should STFU about.

[1] yes, even if you say "data requested by their customers" over and over again

smsm42OP11y ago

The shouldn't shut up about data sent to their networks. They should get paid for it. And they already are! The only reason for consumers to buy services from Verizon (I mean private consumers not running server farms) is to have data sent through Verizon networks and get the data to the users, and of course it is wildly asymmetric - everybody knows it is. It's not some externality that Verizon must suffer - it's the primary and sole reason why users subscribe to Verizon services and pay them money! If Verizon is unable to provide this service for the money they change, they should charge more or change how they do it, but what I completely don't get is how it is taken as if their direct contractual obligations - taking data from whenever it is and getting it into my home (provided I am a Verizon customer) - is presented as something extra that Verizon must unexpectedly do for free.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse