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. ..
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.
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..."
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 countrys 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."
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"... 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?
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.
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).
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!
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.
Said by camper : 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 : 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 thathere'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.
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!"
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.
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.
.... 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.
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.
quote:Cogent Communications, one of Netflixs 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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
"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"