Internet congestionata (ISPs vs Level 3)

moooooolto interessante che Level 3 cominci a far uscire qualche dato ufficiale sulla congestione dei nodi che gli ISPs non vogliono aggiornare

Observations of an Internet Middleman | Beyond Bandwidth

“Chicken” | A Game Played as a Child and by some ISPs with the Internet | Beyond Bandwidth

sappiamo che c'è anche un nodo in Europa ma non hanno ancora detto chi è, magari è in Italia?

I, Cringely Level3 is without peer, now what to do? - I, Cringely

The solution to this problem is simple: peering at the original NSFnet exchange points should be forever free and if one participant starts to consistently clip data and doesn’t do anything about it, they should be thrown out of the exchange point.

E ci aggiungiamo anche le "accuse pubbliche" di un altro big player: Google Youtube

Google Shames Slow U.S. ISPs With Its New YouTube Video Quality Report | TechCrunch

The Google Video Quality Report will show which ISPs in your area can sustain an HD YouTube video feed and which ones may only let you watch standard definition 360p video without buffering.
To become “HD Verified,” an ISP has to be able to show HD for more than 90 percent of streams over the last 30 days. The throughput required for this, Google tells me, is about 2.5 Mbps.
As an extra, the report also gives you some details about when people are watching YouTube videos in your town and how many of them are getting HD and SD streams.

E un esempio positivo da Level 3
When the Middleman and ISP are Aligned | Beyond Bandwidth

An example of that is our long-term relationship with Cablevision. This is a demonstration of how the transparency may be applied.

To be clear, the majority of ISPs around the world work with Level 3 in this way. Most of them routinely augment congested links as a matter of sound engineering practice and good customer service. And most have been willing to negotiate scalable interconnection agreements on fair and reasonable terms.
But since some of the largest ISPs have refused to do so, have left interconnection ports congested and deliberately harmed the quality of the services that customers have paid them for, we felt compelled to shine a light on that practice and believe that some rules are required to put an end to their anticompetitive behaviors.

Sorgono nuove proposte di definizione di "banda larga"

The FCC may consider a stricter definition of broadband in the Netflix age

10 Mbps per vedere film in HD e addirittura si vuole catalogare la velocità di upload: in Italia questa è bassissima data l'ampia diffusione di connessioni con differenze notevoli tra upload e download.

Netflix (che, ricordiamolo, "consuma" gran parte del traffico internet USA) smuove le acque

Netflix has found another way to insult Internet service providers that it blames for poor performance. Netflix customer Yuri Victor, a designer for Vox Media, last night tweeted a picture of a message he got from Netflix that said, "The Verizon network is crowded right now. Adjusting video for smoother playback..."

Netflix tells customer “The Verizon network is crowded right now”

Verizon risponde con un'azione legale

Verizon claims Netflix is driving its customers away, threatens lawsuit | Ars Technica

Level3 sottolinea ironicamente quanto rivelato da Verizon sulla questione Netflix

Verizon’s Accidental Mea Culpa


Verizon

So point number one is that Verizon has freely admitted that is has the ability to deliver lots of Netflix streams to broadband customers requesting them, at no extra cost. But, for some reason, Verizon has decided that it prefers not to deliver these streams, even though its subscribers have paid it to do so.

 lvltvzw-1024x351.jpg   55.84K   13 Numero di downloads

Verizon has confirmed that everything between that router in their network and their subscribers is uncongested – in fact has plenty of capacity sitting there waiting to be used. Above, I confirmed exactly the same thing for the Level 3 network. So in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers. Simple. Something we’ve been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion. Why is that? Maybe they can’t afford a new port card because they’ve run out – even though these cards are very cheap, just a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more. If that’s the case, we’ll buy one for them. Maybe they can’t afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that’s the case, we’ll provide it. Heck, we’ll even install it.

To summarize: All of the networks have ample capacity and congestion only occurs in a small number of locations, locations where networks interconnect with some last mile ISPs like Verizon. The cost of removing that congestion is absolutely trivial. It takes two parties to remove congestion at an interconnect point. I can confirm that Level 3 is not the party refusing to add that capacity. In fact, Level 3 has asked Verizon for a long time to add interconnection capacity and to deliver the traffic its customers are requesting from our customers, but Verizon refuses.

Carrellata dei giocatori USA, tra cui Comcast

http://arstechnica.c...ernet-backbone/

In cases when Netflix’s own CDN lacks direct connections to ISPs, the video company pays transit providers such as Level 3 or Cogent to send its traffic to last-mile ISPs. Level 3 and Cogent generally exchange traffic with the ISPs for free, but some of those ISPs balked when the addition of Netflix traffic forced them to upgrade connections. When Netflix accelerated the shift from third-party CDNs like Akamai to its own CDN in mid-2013, the links became saturated. Level 3 struck a deal with Comcast, the terms of which were undisclosed. Cogent refused to pay, and Comcast in turn refused to upgrade peering connections. Netflix videos began to stutter, and problems arose for other services that traveled over the same pipes.