dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-02-20 09:37:16: As we've been discussing, there's a lot of claims being made about why exactly Netflix streaming is suffering for customers of major ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, but there hasn't been much hard data. ..

Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL

Zoder

Member

Ask Comcast at merger hearing

A Senator or Congressman should ask the Comcast rep at the hearing over the merger whether this is taking place. The person will be under oath so it's the best chance right now to get a truthful answer about what's going on.

EliteData
EliteData
Premium Member
join:2003-07-06
Philippines

EliteData

Premium Member

Re: Ask Comcast at merger hearing

said by Zoder:

A Senator or Congressman should ask the Comcast rep at the hearing over the merger whether this is taking place. The person will be under oath so it's the best chance right now to get a truthful answer about what's going on.

"i neither confirm nor deny the allegations.."
"i reserve the right to plead the fifth..."
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

1 recommendation

axus

Member

Re: Ask Comcast at merger hearing

Actually they'll just answer a different question and keep stalling until the senator's questioning time expires.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Ask Comcast at merger hearing

Truth!
IPPlanMan

3 edits

2 recommendations

IPPlanMan to Zoder

Member

to Zoder
said by Zoder:

A Senator or Congressman should ask the Comcast rep at the hearing over the merger whether this is taking place. The person will be under oath so it's the best chance right now to get a truthful answer about what's going on.

Congress doesn't get to the truth. It just gives the liar a podium and political cover.
None of these "truths" has made anyone get fired or sanctioned. Why do you think it'd be different with Comcast?

Senator Charles Schumer (NY) recused himself from reviewing the Comcast deal, but only after the revelation that his brother, the lawyer Robert Schumer, worked on the deal.
»dealbook.nytimes.com/201 ··· st-deal/

"Mr. Schumer, who sits on the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, praised the merger of the country’s two largest cable giants in a statement on his website on Thursday. On Friday, the magazine American Lawyer named Robert Schumer of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison its “dealmaker of the week” for his work on the transaction."

Move along, nothing to see here.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· vz5uBd5o


»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· XTOjZPfg


»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· YtTnon90


»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· BYYlReUY


»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· nQzGQJTE
JackBauer
join:2006-08-24
Schenectady, NY

JackBauer

Member

Re: Ask Comcast at merger hearing

I'm trying to rise above derogatory comments online, about anyone. It's really really hard here though with Schumer.

I am unfortunately living in the state the keeps electing someone who spends his time worrying about the pretty colors of detergent pods instead of solving problems that are plaguing tens (hundreds?) of millions of our citizens. Unemployment, underemployment, skyrocketing disability claims, soaring debt, Iran, Syria, China's threats to our allies, etc.

Yeah let's worry about the color of detergent packs.

MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

1 recommendation

MxxCon to Zoder

Member

to Zoder
"to the best of my knowledge we do not" and then good luck proving otherwise. :/
Chubbysumo
join:2009-12-01
Duluth, MN
Ubee E31U2V1
(Software) pfSense
Netgear WNR3500L

5 recommendations

Chubbysumo

Member

I have said this before here

ISPs have always let their peering link degrade on services that do not benefit them, meaning, its not the same legal definition, but the same end effect, which means a degraded experience for the end user, who has already paid for the traffic from netflix to come to them.

YukonHawk
join:2001-01-07
Patterson, NY

YukonHawk

Member

Re: I have said this before here

It really amazes how childish this whole situation is. Message to cablecos and telcos: GROW UP!!!!!!
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

2 recommendations

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: I have said this before here

At to Netflix and it's chosen providers. Peering is a two-way arrangement/agreement.

YukonHawk
join:2001-01-07
Patterson, NY

YukonHawk

Member

Re: I have said this before here

True...But the telcos and cablecos are fiercely afraid of companies like Netflix, FilmonTV and Aereo for thinking outside the box and being innovative. These companies can get out of their own way because they are more agile in terms of business making decisions. They are not afraid to take risks. Not like the old boy's network of the cablecos and telcos who are in bed with the pocketicians in Washedupington!!!
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: I have said this before here

said by YukonHawk:

But the telcos and cablecos are fiercely afraid of companies like Netflix

I disagree, if no more than because they deliver Netflix to you. This is a chess game that will serve both Netflix and the ISPs well and ultimately drive costs up all around for consumers.

connections
@pppoe.ca

connections

Anon

Re: I have said this before here

said by openbox9:

said by YukonHawk:

But the telcos and cablecos are fiercely afraid of companies like Netflix

I disagree, if no more than because they deliver Netflix to you. This is a chess game that will serve both Netflix and the ISPs well and ultimately drive costs up all around for consumers.

and people are paying for a service which they are NOT delivering. But customers don't have a choice all too often in markets with little to no competition.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: I have said this before here

Which, Netflix?

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan to Chubbysumo

Member

to Chubbysumo
I completely agree. Comcast knows exactly what it's doing.

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

1 recommendation

telcodad

MVM

The Peering Wars Continue

There was also an article on the Light Reading site yesterday about the Netflix/Cogent/ISP peering issues:

The Great Peering War Rages Again
By Carol Wilson, Light Reading - February 19, 2014
»www.lightreading.com/cab ··· d/707807
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

Re: The Peering Wars Continue

All this aggravation over putting a couple of $5k boxes in a Terremark datacenter? It's not like Verizon doesn't own a major backbone either (UUNET).

The only reason can be politics, not reality. And for large corporations, politics are reality, so we think the result is strange.

Redbox Instant, who cares. If Verizon bundled it w/ my FiOS I may look at it. Netflix is just too ubiquitous at this point for me to care, unless they have some unique value prop (and going to a Redbox kiosk) is not one of them for the streaming service. This project will be dead by the end of the year. I hear outerwall wants to deepsix the project. Verizon could turn this into a OTT cable-killing product, but Verizon's software history is D- at best, and follow through even worse. I wouldn't put a byte in their cloud.

Also as of October, Netflix started rating on PRIME (eve) not 24h so the results for NON OpenCDN ISPs naturally go down as there is more CDN/peering contention during that time. This was happening all along, it just wasn't showing up. Also Jan/Feb really sucked weather-wise so I'm sure networks were sucking more wind than usual.

I am also not seeing issues (nor really ever have), so IMHO I don't think it's simply peering issues, it may be network/DNS management in play as well.

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad

MVM

Cogent says they're gearing-up for another peering battle

A follow-up article on the Light Reading site today, with the highlights of their interview of Cogent's CEO Dave Schaeffer:

Cogent Gearing for Another Peering Battle
By Carol Wilson, Light Reading - February 20, 2014
»www.lightreading.com/cab ··· d/707831

norm
join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA

norm

Member

It's not just Cogent

Level 3, NTT, XO, Zayo, CenturyLink, and I'm sure more. I routinely see congestion with those Tier 1 providers between them and Verizon that I don't see on many other providers.

Netflix and Amazon Instant are threats to Verizon's television and Redbox Instant business model.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: It's not just Cogent

But Hulu is an even bigger threat to Verizon TV and it works perfectly fine for most people. Amazon instant works perfectly fine for most people as well.

norm
join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA

norm

Member

Re: It's not just Cogent

Look at who owns Hulu. I can't speak for the streaming quality of it though as I'm not interested in watching commercials on a streaming service. In regards to Amazon Instant, I have just as many problems with their streaming as I do with Netflix. It's all relevant to the time of day, too.

I think overall, Netflix is perceived as the biggest threat out of those three video services.

camper
just visiting this planet
Premium Member
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT

camper

Premium Member

Distribute traffic more efficiently?

"... Executives at major broadband providers, meanwhile, privately blame the traffic jam on Netflix's refusal to distribute its traffic more efficiently...."

I wonder what it means for Netflix to distribute its traffic more efficiently?

I have to wonder if that means that Netflix needs to pay the ISPs to open up the peering bottlenecks?
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

4 recommendations

rradina

Member

Re: Distribute traffic more efficiently?

Guessing here but I suspect it means they each want Netflix to pay for a direct link to each of them. They don't want Netflix using competitive means to control their costs by paying ONCE for their bandwidth needs to the cheapest provider and allowing that provider to peer with them. They each want to be paid. They want it one of two ways:

1) Netflix pays each provider (Verizon, ATT, Comcast, etc.) for separate dedicated links

2) Netflix's single-source ISP pays peering fees to each provider (Verizon, ATT, Comcast, etc.) which is then passed on to Netflix. This means Netflix cannot shop for the best connectivity rates to control their costs because the peering fees will act as an equalizer so that #2 is the same cost as #1.

Netflix offers free on-premises equipment in an effort to remove traffic from provider backbones. Of course this assumes the motivation of providers is driven by capacity vs. money. If it's driven by the latter, they don't want Netflix's free equipment. They want Netflix to pay them for access to what they perceive as "their" customers. These thoughts are not new. This is old- school telco thinking.

another user
@yahoo.com

another user

Anon

Re: Distribute traffic more efficiently?

but your last comment isn't going to happen, because doing so is a conflict of interest as it's a competing business to many of the same ISPs (the TV/Video part).

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to rradina

Premium Member

to rradina
said by rradina:

Netflix offers free on-premises equipment in an effort to remove traffic from provider backbones. Of course this assumes the motivation of providers is driven by capacity vs. money. If it's driven by the latter, they don't want Netflix's free equipment. They want Netflix to pay them for access to what they perceive as "their" customers. These thoughts are not new. This is old- school telco thinking.

THIS. Netflix offers free equipment which lowers the ISP's bandwidth demands on their peers and improves service to the ISP's users. However, instead of accepting this, they REJECT it and demand that Netflix PAY for "access to our network."

It's your freakin' customers that want to access Netflix! They are PAYING YOU TO PROVIDE THEM ACCESS!

Their sheer greed and audacity knows no limits.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: Distribute traffic more efficiently?

Yeah -- but I think they are using a double standard. I believe the 1996 telco act allowed the terminating telco to charge the originating telco a fee for "accessing their customer's phone". When the call went the other way, the roles were reversed and money flowed the other way.

In the case, even though the Netflix customer "originates" the request to stream the video and, in a manner of speaking, Netflix "terminates" the request, ISPs don't see it that way. They see Netflix making money by using their network to deliver a service to their customers. They don't see their customer also being a customer of Netflix.

I my mind that's kind of a double standard.

netfux
@anonymouse.org

4 recommendations

netfux to camper

Anon

to camper

Said by camper See Profile:
I wonder what it means for Netflix to distribute its traffic more efficiently?

It means, when you use Cogent to the point of congestion AND you are well aware that customers are having a problem, load balance that traffic to other ISPs like Akamai does. This is why other Internet video appears to be working fine. They route around congestion vs create congestion. Netflix can fix performance issues via a few mouse clicks and good business decisions around transit providers

Said by KrK See Profile:
THIS. Netflix offers free equipment which lowers the ISP's bandwidth demands on their peers and improves service to the ISP's users. However, instead of accepting this, they REJECT it and demand that Netflix PAY for "access to our network."

I think the ARStechnica article responded to this best - "If someone comes to you and says, 'hey I'm big, I want differentiated service, I'd like to move close to your consumers, so can you please make 40 inches of space and 5,000 watts of power available at 100 sites, thanks very much,' you would normally say, 'I'm in the business of selling that—here's my price list."

This is standard CDN design should operate as such vs 'hey I'm big, I want differentiated service'. They don't need to pay for access to a network, but they do need to pay for quality transit.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: Distribute traffic more efficiently?

That entire ARStechnica quote is wrong on many levels. This would be more accurate: "Hey, Our service is a big hit with your paying customers, but I see that all this traffic is congesting your network peering points, degrading the performance for both of our customers, while also running up both of our bandwidth expenses. We have the this idea, let's move some equipment closer to your customers, we'll provide it at no cost, all you have to do is power it, it will make our mutual customers much happier and save us both a lot of money in bandwidth..... Thank you very much,' and then the ISP's say "Hell no, you need to pay us triple for that! We're not in the business of making our customers happy, we believe in money.... pools and pools of money, and while your plan would save money and increase profits, we feel we can make a lot *MORE* profits by overcharging you, and if you won't pay up, we can force our customers to avoid your service and use services we can overcharge them for, like our PayTV options..... If you don't like it, WELL YOU'D BETTER PAY UP!"

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

1 recommendation

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

This is why Comcast needs to be broken up

Comcast should be broken up, not allowed to get bigger. I am opposed to the merger but if it goes through I'll be able to keep my E-mail addresses if I move up to Maine.

Their responsibility for internet should begin at the ground block and end at the CMTS. That's it.

If Judge Harold Greene was still alive, the Comcast-Time Warner merger would not happen. He would break up Comcast like he broke up Ma' Bell.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: This is why Comcast needs to be broken up

said by IowaCowboy:

Their responsibility for internet should begin at the ground block and end at the CMTS. That's it.

What about the actual connectivity to the Internet?
said by IowaCowboy:

He would break up Comcast like he broke up Ma' Bell.

Doubtful. The situation and times are different.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

1 edit

1 recommendation

IPPlanMan

Member

File an FCC Complaint against Comcast

Doesn't surprise me at all... Just another service Comcast doesn't want you to use as you cut the cord.

Remember when Comcast originally denied throttling P2P traffic?:
»www.wired.com/threatleve ··· disclos/

The FCC found and proved otherwise.

Now Comcast is denying responsibility for the crap quality of Netflix streaming.

Let the FCC know about this.

Complaint Procedure: »www.fcc.gov/complaints

Select: "Broadband Service and VOIP"

Then select: "Billing, Service, Availability, and Number Portability Issues"

Focus on Item 5, which allows you to provide the details of the issue.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 recommendation

tshirt

Premium Member

Is that just the Wall Street Journal speculating?

or is it Karl speculating about the WSJ's speculation based on a rumor heard from a friend of a friend who knows a guy who used to date a girl who might have been related to someone who thinks they know what's going on.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
ptb42
join:2002-09-30
USA

3 recommendations

ptb42

Member

My connection with Verizon is asymmetric....

.... and I download far more than I upload. Why would Verizon be surprised when there's a similar imbalance upstream?

But, what I really can't figure out: Verizon wouldn't have a product to sell if there weren't content providers "out there" on the 'Net, producing data that their customers want to download. If the Internet was still just email, then everyone would still be using dial-up modems.

Verizon specifically promotes higher bandwidth connections, at a higher price, telling customers they can download large amounts of data, faster. Netflix provides HD video that can't be downloaded reliably on slower connections, and Netflix customers are more likely to pay Verizon for a faster connection.

If Verizon is really throttling Netflix, intentionally or by benign neglect, it would seem they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

IPPlanMan
Holy Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: My connection with Verizon is asymmetric....

They want to sell you a service you won't use.
They don't want you downloading data.
They want you to use only a small percentage of your theoretical bandwidth capability per month.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

Re: My connection with Verizon is asymmetric....

With no caps. With caps, however the story changes, and network congestion magically disappears
Millenium
join:2013-10-30

Millenium

Member

Consumerist

According to Consumerist, Verizon is in fact letting ports saturate:

»consumerist.com/2014/02/ ··· service/
quote:
Cogent Communications, one of Netflix’s largest bandwidth vendors, said last summer that Verizon had previously opened up new ports to ease or prevent congestion when traffic hit around 50% capacity, but that the telecom giant had recently begun letting some ports reach 100% capacity without acting.
I don't know their sources, but they are speaking as if it were fact.
Kalmus
join:2012-11-21
Boston, MA

1 recommendation

Kalmus

Member

Re: Consumerist

Consumerist is just quoting Cogent and doesn't suggest there's any other basis for the claim. This whole issue is just a question of who pays to augment capacity, and the dispute has been going on for months. I bet VZ has a good claim that Cogent is obligated to pay under the applicable agreements; otherwise, Cogent would have sued.
DigitalManny
join:2014-01-08
Glendale, CA

DigitalManny

Member

How about improving the internet morons

If ISPs are so worried about bandwidth than improve the internet yeah I am talking to you Charter Communications.

MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

MxxCon

Member

Any ethical NOCs around?

How about somebody from NOCs "leak" bandwidth utilization of various peering links or whatever other appropriate/useful information?
Then we'll see the numbers and know for sure wtf is going on.

norm
join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA

norm

Member

Re: Any ethical NOCs around?

Someone from Comcast did that on the NANOG mailing list back in 2010 in regards to them and Level 3. I'd love to see that happen again.

Trimline
Premium Member
join:2004-10-24
Windermere, FL

Trimline to MxxCon

Premium Member

to MxxCon
True. Where is our Cable Snowden?
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL

1 recommendation

tkdslr

Member

Netflix could completely eliminate the bottleneck..

That's right.. netflix with some reprogramming could get around the bottleneck..

Offer a 20 to 40% discount to subscribers to allow 2x-2.5x the bandwidth usage per month/movie/program viewed, also subject to customer plugging in a a customized USB stick into PC/tv/set-top/what ever(extra storage for cached programming).

Use that spare bandwidth to do a bit torrent style sharing with other verizon viewers of that same programming. Bingo, if 80% of the users sign up, they'll have reduced the backbone data flow by ~80%. One tv program/movie transferred, 5 verizon customers serviced.

netfux
@anonymouse.org

2 recommendations

netfux

Anon

Netflix using customer performance as leverage

What people seem to be missing is an understanding of the first four letters in the word peering.

Netflix is not a "peer" of Verizon (or any ISP) and therefore they are not entitled to trade network like other ISPs are. Now I can see they WANT peering entitlements, but they can't meet peering policies and don't actually bring the same network investment to the table. They bring a "free server" (which is not actually free)

Now I expect Netflix is unhappy about that and are creating congestion on networks (using patsies or colaborators like Cogent) to cause "customer impact" while blaming everyone else, as a way to drive business negotiations.

This is not a net neutrality, monopolistic power, or "peering" issue... it is a business negotiation where Netflix is using customer performance as leverage for better rates.

Now as far as Cogent... well... their track record speaks for itself. And Netflix use of them is summarized with "your customers are unhappy about it".
compuwizz
join:2001-03-05
Las Vegas, NV

1 recommendation

compuwizz

Member

My experience with Cogent

I added Cogent into our BGP mix a couple years ago. All has been decent except for every once in a while there would be a congested peer that I'd have to change my announcements and route around. In a couple days it would be fixed and then everything would be fine again. Except Verizon never got fixed and this started over a year ago. So I quit announcing my routes to Verizon via Cogent and routed my outbound traffic through other carriers. This was for traffic destined to Verizon itself and not to any residential services.

Then starting this past Monday, I got complaints from users on Comcast, Brighthouse Networks, and Time Warner Cable that they were having trouble connecting, high latency and jitter. All traceroutes involved Cogent.

I opened a ticket with Cogent and they confirmed their peer with Telia was congested which was causing the problem. So I asked what networks should I route around so that I can turn my Cogent connections back on and still have a good experience for my customers. The NOC's responded saying Level3, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, TATA, and now Telia. This tells me I can only really use my Cogent links for Cogent customers and maybe European traffic because peering exchanges there are managed with traffic levels in mind.

I personally don't think its just Netflix that has caused Cogent to go downhill so quickly. I do think Netflix needs to belly up and buy paid peering (customer routes) with the eyeball networks. Then we can see if its really Netflix's fault that these public peering connections are so congested or if its bad management on Cogent's end.

NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

1 recommendation

NOCMan

Premium Member

We All Pay

Customer Pays Verizon for access to the "Internet"
Netflix is on the "Internet"
Netflix pays Amazon for access to the internet
Amazon pays Verizon for internet circuits
Amazon pays per MB/s on usage on the circuit
Customer Accesses Netflix and likes it watches more Netflix.
Verizon does not like customer using his service
Verizon through creative BGP peering forces netflix traffic across single links (Other ISP's are guilty here too).
Netflix degraded - Customers pissed
Verizon asks Netflix to pay them for access to bandwidth they already paid Amazon for who in turn paid Verizon for.
????
Profit.
serge87
join:2009-11-29
New York

serge87

Member

Re: We All Pay

said by NOCMan:

Verizon through creative BGP peering forces netflix traffic across single links (Other ISP's are guilty here too).

Don't assume Netflix is so sweet and innocent, they can do the exact same thing...

From: »arstechnica.com/informat ··· at-video

"CDNs can take multiple paths to a consumer ISP and will hit transit networks on the way there. The receiver of content is responsible for showing how it can be reached, while the sender is responsible for how it reaches the endpoint when there are multiple choices"