dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-02-11 18:26:53: Last week we highlighted the seeming neutrality furor caused by a blog post accusing Verizon of intentionally throttling Netflix traffic. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


nothing00

join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

1 recommendation

So it's one problem or another for customers

Either:
1. Verizon is throttling Netflix intentionally (saturated peers, whatever)
or
2. Verizon's network can no longer handle the demand

Either way - the customer isn't getting the 'premium' experience they're paying for.


tshirt
Premium
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

So do they believe anyone besides Netflix is restricting...

...Netflix from serving their customers?
Yes they have and continue to hint that the drop in quality is on the ISP end, BUT by now they SHOULD be able to show dumpsters worth of proof that they are being offered substandard routes.
and yet Netflix won't make that direct statement, because they know it is untrue.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to nothing00

Re: So it's one problem or another for customers

Can someone explain the Netflix chart? They show Google Fiber at like 3Mbps. Dont they provide Gbps service?


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17

1 edit

7 recommendations

reply to nothing00
How about:
3. Netflix isn't buying enough bandwidth on some or many of it's private links into Verizon's network needed to cover peak utilization.

This isn't throttling, it's nothing to do with network neutrality, and making Verizon FIOS a Common Carrier won't fix it. Since Netflix doesn't have any upstream customers FIOS customers send data to, there isn't a balanced enough traffic flow for Settlement Free peering.
--
I'll make it work.... hand me that BFR.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to nothing00
Or not. I've never had a Netflix, Amazon, or youtube issue.

I checked a few streams the other day, and it was streaming from CDN edge cache in washington DC, through third-party (level3/IAD). For superHD it goes to nflxvideo.net forced to IPv4 (I force on my DNS server) also apparently routed through L3. Verizon hands off to L3 through UUNET in NYC. I live in UNY.

For youtube I went to html5 when their servers were overloaded, and Netflix through Xbox can sometimes haze (lower bitrate), but other than that I see practically no issues w/ FiOS.

Also, only 2 people on my block are TWC holdouts, the other 12 all have FiOS so it's not like the nodes aren't being used.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926
Those are average bitrates and it really doesn't talk about prime or peak. But at the end of the day a SuperHD stream only runs 7-8 MBps which any decent endpoint can handle IF the stream isn't bottle necked.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:17

2 edits

3 recommendations

reply to elefante72
said by elefante72:

Or not. I've never had a Netflix, Amazon, or youtube issue.

Being that both companies have large networks, there are multiple interconnect points and often multiple CDN providers involved.

It's easy enough for some of those links to be saturated and need upgrading while others aren't.

Also the nice thing when Netflix uses L3 is that L3 has many more upstream customers ISP customers trade data with, so at least some Settlement Free peering covers some of the traffic, but that sort of connection through L3 costs Netflix more than using their own CDN links. Netflix own financial reports show they've been trying to ween themselves off of using 3rd party CDN providers and use their own home-rolled solutions (i.e. Open Connect, caching servers, OpenIX, etc.).
--
I'll make it work.... hand me that BFR.

shmerl

join:2013-10-21

If Netflix is so brave

as to oppose downstream net neutrality abuses from ISPs, why can't they oppose DRM enforced from the upstream content publishers the same way and "galvanize" their userbase to the cause? Instead, Netflix readily dances around publishers and pushes DRM into HTML5 standard.


your name

@comcast.net

4 recommendations

reply to DrDrew

Re: So it's one problem or another for customers

said by DrDrew:

How about:
3. Netflix isn't buying enough bandwidth on it's private links into Verizon's network needed to cover peak utilization.

This isn't throttling, it's nothing to do with network neutrality, and making Verizon FIOS a Common Carrier won't fix it. Since Netflix doesn't have any upstream customers FIOS customers send data to, there isn't a balanced enough traffic flow for Settlement Free peering.

The whole path from content provider thru 1 or more CDNs(content delivery networks) to the ISP and their multi-hops to end user have many possible bottlenecks where cost considerations also intrude. The internet wasn't designed and built for non-stop high bandwidth video delivery. That feature was layered on top of the original internet design. Even to this day there are slow points throughout the whole system that are yet to be fully addressed.

Welcome to reality!!

xenophon

join:2007-09-17

1 recommendation

reply to elefante72
Yeah, and Netflix needs to break it down by stream type SuperHD, 720HD, etc and then how well the carrier could sustain it w/out stepping down.

For example if a majority of Google users are on a device that can't do SuperHD, it would show a lower number. But if Netflix showed avgs that peaked to SuperHD, did it sustain it. If it peaked to 720HD, how well did it sustain it, etc.

The method they are doing is quite pointless because you don't know what the max device capability is for the end user. IE Win8 and some newer Roku can do SuperHD, Win7 and older Roku cannot.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to shmerl

Re: If Netflix is so brave

Because that would be counter productive. They are a streaming service that wants to keep you subscribing. The best way to do that is to make sure people can't get your product without subscribing. If they were actually selling shows/movies, things would be different. But they are simply renting access to view it.

Plus content providers wouldn't cave so there would be absolutely no point in trying. You are not supposed to own anything from a subscription service. The only way to reasonable assure that is to use DRM.


Fanfoot

@sonic.net

So... what proof can anyone offer?

The most obvious proof would be if you could tunnel through the local ISP and then follow the same route and end up at the same CDN node for the video as previously and suddenly you don't have a problem.

But you can't leave the tunnel at the same point in the network, nor likely use the same CDN node once you tunnel through your VPN of choice. So if that works great when you VPN it could just be that you're now on an unloaded CDN node, rather than your tunnel preventing Verizon's equipment from delaying your traffic or whatever.

In the absence of this without Netflix or Verizon's co-operation I don't see how you can diagnose the problem or figure out who's fault it is. It certainly looks damning that Verizon's Netflix streams are falling off at a much greater rate than the increase in Netflix customers or Verizon broadband customers or any other network usage increase would seem to explain. But it isn't proof.


PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
reply to elefante72

Re: So it's one problem or another for customers

Why force IPv4 when Netflix does not advertise any AAAA addresses?

»[Speed] Netflix Comcast does not support HD streaming


Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

2 recommendations

reply to xenophon
said by xenophon:

Yeah, and Netflix needs to break it down by stream type SuperHD, 720HD, etc and then how well the carrier could sustain it w/out stepping down.

For example if a majority of Google users are on a device that can't do SuperHD, it would show a lower number. But if Netflix showed avgs that peaked to SuperHD, did it sustain it. If it peaked to 720HD, how well did it sustain it, etc.

The method they are doing is quite pointless because you don't know what the max device capability is for the end user. IE Win8 and some newer Roku can do SuperHD, Win7 and older Roku cannot.

All of those things average out across the user base. Netflix has all the raw data and would be aware if there were significant statistical differences between different ISPs' customers.
--
If you can't open it, you don't own it.


anon

@wideopenwest.com

netflix

to me it sounds like netflix is ready to do a away with neutrality

shmerl

join:2013-10-21

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

Re: If Netflix is so brave

Counter productive to what? DRM doesn't work to prevent people from getting the same thing without subscribing anyway (i.e. those who pirate). There is no point to ever use DRM. I'm not talking about the fact that renting digital goods doesn't make sense in the first place - it's a separate subject. I'm talking about DRM being useless (let alone insulting to the users).

Why wouldn't content publishers cave? They need to sell their content, not to sit on it like on piles of gold.

DigitalManny

join:2014-01-08
Glendale, CA

Netflix than tell me is it my ISP streaming Netflix in SD?

Yeah I got Charter Communications and every night it starts streaming in SD tell again that it is my ISP because they tell me it is you guys so who is the fucking liar here?

Netflix and Charter Communications two of the biggest trolls.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

2 recommendations

reply to DrDrew

Re: So it's one problem or another for customers

DING DING DING. We have a winner!

slckusr
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC
kudos:1

Primtime HD streaming

I wasnt getting HD consistently during primetime, so I downloaded the Windows 8.1 app instead of my browser and was getting HD streams fine. o0o0o Used less resources even.


michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..

....ugh

Media just jumped onto this story because it was a mere Level 1 rep who wanted the client to shut the hell up so told him yes to make him happy. In response the user posted it to the media and now everyone's is like "Aha!" when in reality there is no proof of what is really going on.

The only real proof is that SD streaming is consistent and it could be a Netflix and ISP problem. No reason for the consumer to dance around between both companies to try and figure out the problem. Let Netflix provide the straight answer and blaming someone else isn't the answer.

Tired of companies leaving the customer in limbo. Yank the money away and see how quickly they find a "real" answer.

Whatever this isn't much of an issue I care about to do anything about, however if the problem results in consistent buffering then we going to have a problem.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 edit
reply to shmerl

Re: If Netflix is so brave

If it was not DRM protected, the ability to stream rip would run rampant. That is not in Netflix's best interest. You know what happened when people learned of the ability to stream-rip Spotify's web-player? It gained massive attention across media and social media alike within a day. The ability to download any song, for free, was too much for people to pass up.

No point to use DRM ever? Quite the contrary actually. Look at Spotify Premium for example. It offers the ability download all tracks for offline play. If those tracks were not secured with DRM, what would stop someone from simply accumulating a massive library and taking it outside the Spotify ecosystem? Nothing. How would they ever keep track of plays to pay license holders? How would they prevent you from burning albums to CDs and handing them out to friends? How would they prevent you from simply subscribing for a month every year to download all the music you can think of, then cancel again for the next 11 months because your music would be permanent? Again, they couldn't. DRM is not only to protect the copyright holders, but also the services themselves. Their "forced into it" mentality is nothing but a pity party to smooth over ruffled customer's feathers. The companies fully embrace DRM everyday and will continue to do so.

When you use the subscription model, you are not given a license to do whatever you want with the content. You are given a license to use the content for a contracted amount of time with restrictions. Like it or not, that is what you agree to. If they can't revoke that content when the payments stops or prevent you from easily committing copyright infringement, then the model is broken. DRM is simply enforcing the license you are granted, which ranges from very strict to very lenient. When it comes to subscription services, it is actually pretty rare that DRM gets in the way of legal use or innovation.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to battleop

Re: So it's one problem or another for customers

And it's still the ISP's problem is the bottlenecks are their cache servers, bottlenecks on their network from the CDN's or bottlenecks on their last mile.... not even mentioning if the ISP refuses to allow CDN's on their network in the first place.

If Netflix has capacity issues to/on their CDN's then it's on them.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to DigitalManny

Re: Netflix than tell me is it my ISP streaming Netflix in SD?

Easy: Your ISP

Eek2121

join:2002-10-12
Newton, NJ
Reviews:
·FreedomPop

The competition is slow to react

If I were Cablevision i'd be eating Verizon's lunch right now. I can just picture it now...a commercial with someone staring at the screen...looking at the 'buffering...'...heh...no wonder Cablevision is having such hardship. Verizon has been doing this for YEARS ( I had fios in 08/09 and it was going on then) with YouTube, this isn't a new development, why hasn't Cablevision capitalized on this?
--
My beta Ruby on Rails tutorial site!

shmerl

join:2013-10-21

2 edits
reply to silbaco

Re: If Netflix is so brave

quote:
If it was not DRM protected, the ability to stream rip would run rampant.
This is nonsense. Instant piracy of anything offered on Netflix or elsewhere is a fact. DRM there does nothing to reduce it, since it takes one to break the DRM in order for all other pirates to get it DRM free ever since without bothering with any ripping and etc. I.e. those who want to pirate will do it regardless any DRM in Netflix. So why should they insult their own users with this useless junk which only stands in the way and pollutes HTML standard with unethical ideas?

quote:
what would stop someone from simply accumulating a massive library and taking it outside the Spotify ecosystem? Nothing.
You miss the point. Which content there is not available from pirate sources? I doubt such thing even exists. Q.E.D. - DRM in Spotify does nothing at all as well. Why are they using it there then? No valid reason apparently.

quote:
The companies fully embrace DRM everyday and will continue to do so.
Why? Cory Doctorow compares such companies to adherents of Lysenkoism - false scientfic theory which was strongly held in the top echelons of USSR science, while real scientists understood it was all bunk. DRM is exactly the same thing - it's total bunk in a sense that it has zero effect on preventing piracy. All it does is hindering user experience for legitimate customers.

quote:
DRM is simply enforcing the license you are granted
As I said, DRM is simply not capable of enforcing anything, because the same content is published DRM-free instantly by pirate sources right after it appears in DRMed ones. So I see no difference in whether it's subscription model or purchase model regarding the need of any DRM ever. By not using DRM any service will only improve user experience and lose nothing.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

2 recommendations

reply to KrK

Re: So it's one problem or another for customers

The cache servers and CDNs are Netflix's responsibility not the ISP.

guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

3 recommendations

Not a Verizon issue

There are no peering issue with Verizon, Verizon is providing all the contracted bandwidth, its the CDN's who take from Netflix and then have been dumping into the peering point exceeding there contracted allowance.

Why would any business provide more service than is contracted, do all the end-users complain to their ISP if the can't upload at 100mbs when the only pay for 1mbs??

The CDN's are underbidding for Netflix traffic, but they don't have the contracted bandwidth with the tier one networks, this is all about the bit whores like Cogent, nothing else, Even Netflix knows this ..
Expand your moderator at work

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to shmerl

Re: If Netflix is so brave

Pirated content from other sources has absolutely nothing to do with DRM on Spotify. DRM on Spotify is designed to prevent pirating music from Spotify and it is has been extremely successful in doing just that. You have to go to fairly great lengths to copy music from Spotify, which the absolute vast majority are not willing to try. Same goes for Netflix. Not to mention most people have no idea these services even use DRM. The only thing they know is that the content cannot be easily copied and they must keep paying for it.

You don't think people will make unauthorized copies of Spotify's music or Netflix's movies and promptly cancel to avoid payment if DRM was lifted? Of course they will. Heck I have been reading forum posts on a weekly basis from people trying to do just that with Rhapsody for nearly a decade. If Rhapsody allowed users to cancel and keep all the music in their library, you can be very sure a sizable amount would cancel immediately. They would have nothing to gain from removing DRM. And the negative impact on paid purchased downloads would be significant.

And as has been said before, these services depend on being able to pay-per-play. Without DRM it would be nearly impossible to track plays of downloaded tracks/shows.

shmerl

join:2013-10-21

3 edits
quote:
Pirated content from other sources has absolutely nothing to do with DRM on Spotify. DRM on Spotify is designed to prevent pirating music from Spotify and it is has been extremely successful in doing just that.
Are you saying that DRM wasn't broken already? Because Netflix one surely is broken. From the time any DRM is broken - it's obsolete. You keep repeating that it takes great length to copy it from Spotify or Netflix (i.e. assuming it involves some process of breaking DRM). It might involve effort, but you miss the point I made above - it's enough for one pirate to apply that effort, and that content can be pirated outside Spotify, Netflix and etc. ever since, so the fact that those still have DRM on that content becomes completely irrelevant to any ideas of preventing piracy.

quote:
Without DRM it would be nearly impossible to track plays of downloaded tracks/shows.
How so? Statisics of downloads don't require any DRM. Any DRM-free stores can easily gather statistics of purchases (examples - Humble Bundle, GOG etc.). And Youtube is a perfect example of a streaming service which has views statistics without enforcing DRM. And why would they care about number of views of the downloaded content? They care about streamed one, since that's an expense for them (on their servers and network).

By removing DRM services gain the simple point of not being jerks by treating all customers as criminals. The negative impact is simply non existent as I explained above. Some publisher execs however harbor the false Lysnekoist theory that DRM helps them preventing piracy. But it doesn't make it any more real.