dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-02-24 14:20:40: It looks like Verizon won't be too far behind Comcast, who over the weekend struck a deal charging Netflix for direct interconnection to Comcast's users. ..


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

1 edit

IPPlanMan

Member

One by one they go...

»www.washingtonpost.com/b ··· bsolete/

"...Another is Ars Technica's recent story about a dispute between the backbone provider Cogent and Verizon. Netflix is a Cogent customer. Surging Netflix traffic has been overwhelming the links between Cogent and Verizon. Cogent has asked for those links to be upgraded, but according to Cogent, Verizon has demanded payment for upgrading the links. (When Ars asked Verizon for comment, a spokesman declined to comment on the specifics of the negotiation.)"

Cogent is no longer a relevant player. The next "Netflix" will need to deal with an ISP like Comcast or Verizon directly and pay the "going rate". That's a potentially dangerous precedent.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: One by one they go...

in some ways this reflects multiple problems. First off is the death of net neutrality.

But no I see something far deeper... Netflix Streaming filled a hole that big firms like Verizon and Comcast should have never allowed to exist to begin with.

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

1 recommendation

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: One by one they go...


Get ready...
What we have here is "double dipping"... just like a supermarket charges customers for products and then turns around and charges food companies for premium shelf space.

That's what the Internet is turning into.
serge87
join:2009-11-29
New York

2 recommendations

serge87

Member

Re: One by one they go...

Do some research... http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

Re: One by one they go...

That article simply misleads people further:

"Comcast is the only one who actually owns the pipes. Netflix is simply leasing capacity from other network providers. In addition, Netflix does not own an "Open Connect Network". Open Connect is a program, it's not a network that Netflix "owns" as the servers caching and delivering Netflix's content are sitting inside the ISP networks, which isn't owned or operated by Netflix."

Does every carrier actually own 100% of their network? Meaning the long haul fiber between major POPs is 100% owned by that said carrier (e.g. Comcast)? Is Comcast truly a Tier 1 carrier, meaning they don't have any paid-transit?

I've seen many large networks lease wavelength services from other carriers, that's common practice. There are a lot of private fiber entities that strictly deal with layer 1.

Netflix operates a network just like anyone else, except they use cache servers to bring the content closer to the end-user (WHICH IS A GOOD THING). However, those servers need content-fill nightly, which Netflix has to transport somehow.

»bgp.he.net/AS2906

They seem like a network to me. Maybe not Tier-1, but they own and operate their own network.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

1 recommendation

fg8578

Member

Re: One by one they go...

Netflix operates its own CDN. And like every other CDN, it should pay for interconnection to retail ISPs. This is nothing new or "ominous" nor does it set any sort of "bad precedent". It is exactly how the Internet has worked for the last twenty years.
kevnich24
join:2006-04-19
Mulberry, FL

1 recommendation

kevnich24 to serge87

Member

to serge87
That link is actually the only one I've seen that accurately tells how the all the back end infrastracture stuff between providers are laid out. Very nice and informative article. Granted - I doubt most people will read it past the first paragraph though.

Mr Guy
@charter.com

1 recommendation

Mr Guy to IPPlanMan

Anon

to IPPlanMan
hyperbole much?

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

1 recommendation

davidc502 to IPPlanMan

Member

to IPPlanMan
"What we have here is "double dipping".

Not really... Since the inception of the internet, companies pay ISP's so people can access thier content (for example). People pay ISP's to be able to reach content.

It makes sense to me that Netflix would streamline the process to get content to Comcast users by doing way with the middle-man (Cogent). Who knows, by striking a deal directly with Comcast, Netflix may pay less in the long run. Why? because they no longer have to pay cogent for the traffic from Netflix to Comcast.
mlcarson
join:2001-09-20
Santa Maria, CA

mlcarson

Member

Re: One by one they go...

People pay ISP's to access Internet content -- not content of the ISP. If a provider is unable to deliver said content a customer in a world where there was competition would choose another provider that could. What we have is a monopoly or a duopoly for Internet access so the providers can get away with charging for the same bandwidth twice. They advertise high speeds but don't want you to actually utilize them so they don't peer at a high enough capacity with other providers for their customers to actually use the bandwidth they are paying for.

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578

Member

Re: One by one they go...

The bottleneck isn't really the last mile connection (although you shouldn't expect HD streaming over a 1.5 DSL line). The bottleneck is the peering connections between the retail ISP and the CDN. If the CDN brings more traffic than the peering agreement allows for, the ISP has to open up more peering points. The question is, who pays for that? As usual, it comes down to money.
clone (banned)
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN

1 recommendation

clone (banned) to IPPlanMan

Member

to IPPlanMan
If Comcast was the one charging the customer more for access to Netflix, then yes, your graphic would be correct. Based on your username, I assume you know what peering agreements are and how they work, so I'm not going to re-explain it.

But let's say you are a backbone provider, let's just say Cogent, but it could be any of them, and you had one of your customers that generated a huge amount of traffic. One of your other customers, let's say Comcast, but it could be any reseller/ISP, who received a huge amount of that traffic.

The peering point is becoming saturated with all the traffic that is being requested by Comcast's customers. They are not sending as much traffic as they are receiving, so the ratio is way off balance. Comcast is not interested in paying more money to that provider than they already are, and Netflix traffic suffers. The people being hurt here are Comcast's customers who are also Netflix customers. No one else, really.

There are many ways to play this.

1. Comcast will pay more money to Cogent to upgrade the saturated link, because they are receiving more traffic from them than they are sending. This is probably what *should* happen, but would result in the exact scenario you purport above, you want Netflix, you pay more for the service. We have avoided that scenario today.

2. Comcast does nothing, and the Cogent traffic degrades.

3. Netflix pays Cogent to upgrade the saturated link.

4. Netflix finds another backbone provider to haul the traffic to Comcast, possibly with better terms than that of Cogent.

5. Netflix effectively becomes their own backbone provider by moving the content right to Comcast's border, thereby being able to provide their customers with service and save money by paying it to Comcast for colocation rather than Cogent for transport.

Option 5 was chosen. It's a win for consumers, they won't pay more money, as the money Netflix was using to pay Cogent can now be used to pay Comcast, with little congestion. Consumers won't pay Comcast any additional money, as they're now *making* money where they probably would have had an additional cost.

The only real loser is Cogent, as they don't get to make more money to transport Netflix's data to Comcast, like they wanted. But at the same time, their costs should now go down as well. So they probably break even either way.

How, exactly, is this "double dipping"? Comcast is charging Netflix to colocate equipment in their facilities or transport data directly to serve their mutual customers. Without knowing the terms of the deal, there's no way to say who's getting screwed. Comcast might be charging less than their actual cost to colocate/transport. We don't know. Netflix might be paying more than they were paying Cogent, thereby they are taking a loss. We don't know. I'd say, probably, they're paying less than they were to Cogent, and Comcast is still making a few extra bucks off Netflix. But again, that's just speculation.

But how, exactly, this is creating an Internet where I, the consumer, am paying more to the ISP to access third-party services, I just don't see it.
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY

plat2on1

Member

Re: One by one they go...

actually I think option 4 was chosen but that other provider happens to be Comcast itself
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

1 recommendation

BiggA to IPPlanMan

Premium Member

to IPPlanMan
This is a peering deal. Although it's kind of tertiarily related, this is NOT a net neutrality issue.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

AVonGauss to Kearnstd

Premium Member

to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

First off is the death of net neutrality.

It has nothing to do with net neutrality, it's simple economics.

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

davidc502

Member

Re: One by one they go...

The problem was how Comcast and Verizon forced Netflix's hand by imposing data rate reductions to consumers from Netflix(cogen).

We will let Congress sort that part out.
clone (banned)
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN

clone (banned)

Member

Re: One by one they go...

Imposing data rate reductions? You mean by not paying more money to upgrade backbone connection/peering points that are saturated from a slew of their customers all accessing one third-party service during peak periods? Sure, I guess Comcast and Verizon could have done that, but then they would have had to pass that cost along to *all* subscribers, whether they use Netflix or not.

Or, they could just charge their customers who want to use Netflix specifically an extra monthly fee for the privilege. Which would you have chosen?
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

1 recommendation

cramer

Premium Member

Re: One by one they go...

[Please stop using the term "backbone"; no network of any measurable size has a backbone. (a single link, switch, or area through which all traffic flows.)]

I think I've come to the root of the issue: Either Netflix underestimated the capabilities of their new ISP (Cogent), or Cogent lied (failed to disclose, whatever) about their interlink capacity with other consumer networks. While Cogent is being paid by Netflix to carry this traffic, so are the consumer ISPs -- their customers are the ones asking for it, after all. Now Cogent knew, or should have expected, their links would be insufficient. In that, I have to side with the Verizon's of the world...

Why should Verizon (et. al.) pay for upgrades to interlinks with Cogent because of one of Cogent's customers? Ideally, both Cogent and it's peers should carry their part of the burden; Cogent has a responsibility to it's customers (Netflix being but one), and likewise Verizon (et. al.) have a responsibility to theirs. But, the Cogent links aren't being saturated because Cogent has so many customers, they're flooded by. a. single. customer; a customer that could change providers at any time and move the whole mess to different set of links. Cogent isn't willing to buy the necessary bandwidth to support it's customer, and the other operators aren't about to give it to them for free.

It's not so much "net neutrality" as extortion... "Hey, Netflix, ya' know, if you wanted to improve the experience for your customers within my network, I could hook you up with a "fair" deal on a 10G metro-e." (or, maybe, use a transit provider capable of carrying your traffic.)

fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX

fg8578 to Kearnstd

Member

to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

in some ways this reflects multiple problems. First off is the death of net neutrality.

This is a peering / interconnection issue that has nothing to do with net neutrality:
quote:
But the truth is that neither the Comcast deal nor any deals that Netflix may strike with AT&T, Verizon or any other ISP has anything to do with Net neutrality.
AT&T, Verizon may join Comcast in Netflix streaming deal
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

AVonGauss to IPPlanMan

Premium Member

to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:

Cogent is no longer a relevant player. The next "Netflix" will need to deal with an ISP like Comcast or Verizon directly and pay the "going rate". That's a potentially dangerous precedent.

Not really, they will start the same as NetFlix did most likely using shared resources such as AWS at first, then scaling to their own infrastructure but still using transit providers like Level 3 and Cogent for transport with the eventual progression to more direct relationships such as NetFlix has just done. This isn't unique to NetFlix, almost any Internet content provider of sizable volume has to go through this transition.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: One by one they go...

Name another internet content provider that pays any ISP for said ISP to deliver the data the ISP's customers have requested at a reasonable and timely fashion?
plat2on1
join:2002-08-21
Hopewell Junction, NY

1 recommendation

plat2on1

Member

Re: One by one they go...

said by Skippy25:

Name another internet content provider that pays any ISP for said ISP to deliver the data the ISP's customers have requested at a reasonable and timely fashion?

Valve/Steam have peered with Comcast directly for years and I would bet my life that they are paying for that privilege.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

silbaco to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
Google has been buying paid peering for years. Yahoo and Microsoft have as well. Akamai has been well known for buying paid peering from Comcast and other ISPs, which a multitude of internet content providers use including Crunchyroll, a Netflix competitor.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

AVonGauss to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
Comcast is an ISP, Comcast also has a transit network. NetFlix could have paid more money to Cogent, Level 3 or any other transit providers to send data to Comcast customers but instead chose to peer directly with Comcast. This is likely something NetFlix has been planning to do for quite some time, since about the time they started building their own CDN...

What's so complicated to understand?
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

1 recommendation

InvalidError to IPPlanMan

Member

to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:

The next "Netflix" will need to deal with an ISP like Comcast or Verizon directly and pay the "going rate". That's a potentially dangerous precedent.

Peering arrangements is how the internet was built. If one traffic source is responsible for an unusually large chunk of an ISP's traffic, the ISPs will want the most cost-effective and most scalable transit posible and that happens to be direct peering. It follows naturally that with Netflix having become such a major chunk of peak-hours bandwidth use, ISPs would want to favor direct peering.

From Netflix's side of things, without direct peering, Netflix would have to go through CDNs and transit providers instead of dealing directly with ISPs... so Netflix ends up paying someone to pick up their traffic either way. Those direct peering arrangements merely eliminate one layer of middlemen which should reduce overall cost and improve performance.

Just another day at the office as far as peering arrangements go.

Overall, the direct peering deals probably end up cheaper for Netflix and the only ones potentially losing money on direct peering are transit providers and CDNs that get bypassed.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

1 recommendation

rebus9 to IPPlanMan

Member

to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:

Cogent is no longer a relevant player.

Strongly disagree. The other ~70% of internet traffic IS NOT streaming.

I'm thankful for Cogent, because they've significantly driven down the cost of providing content. In 2002 we ($DAYJOB) were paying $17,000 a month for a 100 Mbps connection, and that was a good deal. (For the mathematically challenged, that is $170 per megabit.)

Then Cogent disrupted the Old Guard with real price competition. Today a Gig-E from Cogent in the same market is barely more than $1 per megabit.

If it wasn't for companies like Cogent being a catalyst for change in bandwidth pricing, companies like Netflix might not exist. The Old Guard players would still have the market by the throat.
YDC
join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

1 recommendation

YDC

Member

Peering is a two-way street

The Internet is built upon peering arrangements. An arrangement means traffic is EXCHANGED, not streamed one way. The agreement may simply be that they share their backbone with these companies more freely, thereby offloading some content to Cogent, who probably doesn't do very much of that now as they can weight their BGP so nothing much comes their way. If that cannot be achieved then it is not a peering arrangement and should be subsidized. I ran an ISP for quite some time and know all about this. If you are not a peer then you are a customer, and you pay. Nothing new here.. move on gents!
serge87
join:2009-11-29
New York

serge87

Member

Re: Peering is a two-way street

But the sky is falling!!!!1 wake up sheeple!
YDC
join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

1 recommendation

YDC

Member

Netflix is cheating you too..

By the way, Netflix is cheating you too! If they bought multiple backbones there would be no peering arrangement needed. They chose the cheap route. That means they pay less and make more. You on the other hand will end up paying for this if they do not. Someone has to foot the bill.

When things get tossed under the carpet for too long, those routers, people to manage them, power to run them, cooling for the data centers, fiber to connect them and all the fun that happens every day on the carrier platform where carriers try to offload on their neighbors instead of upgrading eventually come back to haunt them.

Don't get me wrong here.. The plan is to make money for all involved, but sometimes when one network feeds all the traffic at the others, they may want to make a little too. Most ISPs and co-location facilities have MANY paths to the Internet. They spread their bandwidth among the links proportionally and try (using BGP) to get the most direct path. That usually means traffic for one network goes through their peer to it or as close as possible to it. This is a peering arrangement that works. If a leg drops there are other paths to get out as well so this is good all the way. It means faster traffic and more throughput. If you cheat as Netflix does all of this fails and traffic does hit bottlenecks.

That's all there is to it. They need to buy more network connections. They should not mooch on the world. We pay for multiple connections as co-lo and cloud structures should. So should they.

No, I do not work for any telco, but like you, I pay them.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Netflix is cheating you too..

Last I checked, Netflix has arrangements with providers other than Cogent. Heck, Level3 paying Comcast as a direct result of Netflix using Level3 for serving up their videos.
YDC
join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

YDC

Member

Re: Netflix is cheating you too..

That is wrong. If it is a direct hand-off there should be no event there. That traffic is already paid for.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to YDC

Member

to YDC
So in all of your wisdom, when a content company that already pays for internet access (which Netflix is and does) gets popular enough that many people request their content then said content company should start paying ISPs to make sure those people get the data they requested?

I wonder if Download.com and all those "linux ISO" sites that have hundreds of gigabytes/terabytes downloaded every month are secretly paying said ISPs as well so the ISP consumers get the data they request?
serge87
join:2009-11-29
New York

1 recommendation

serge87

Member

Re: Netflix is cheating you too..

said by Skippy25:

So in all of your wisdom, when a content company that already pays for internet access (which Netflix is and does) gets popular enough that many people request their content then said content company should start paying ISPs to make sure those people get the data they requested?

You need to be more specific, especially when talking about peering vs transit.

Netflix connects to the rest of the internet in multiple ways, especially via third-party providers like Level 3, Cogent, Akamai, etc. Those third-parties peer with Verizon. In the deal that Netflix made with Comcast, they decided to peer directly, even if compensation to Comcast was required to offset the uneven traffic flow(this is an indisputable fact). They no longer pay a third-party like Cogent in transit fees but instead shift the money spent in transit fees to peering directly with an ISP(Comcast, Verizon, et al). There is no "new money" being spent, just being re-appropriated.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

AVonGauss to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

I wonder if Download.com and all those "linux ISO" sites that have hundreds of gigabytes/terabytes downloaded every month are secretly paying said ISPs as well so the ISP consumers get the data they request?

It has nothing to do with "getting the data they request", it involves transit, plain and simple - nobody is going to provide transit for free. Even Verizon and Comcast likely still pay for transit for their subscribers even though they have their own large transit networks.

NF345
@sbcglobal.net

NF345

Anon

Rate will go up

The fee will be passed to consumers.

••••••••

Mr Guy
@charter.com

Mr Guy

Anon

looks like mountain actually molehill

Oh noes the sky is falling!!!!!! Yeah and the world ended on Dec 21 2012 too.

trparky
Premium Member
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH

trparky

Premium Member

Will AT&T be next in line?

Will AT&T be next in line?

••••

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

cableties

Premium Member

Now if MS would ...

stop their proxy of video apps...

I can get spinning wheel on HBO GO, Netflix, etc going through Xbox.
But if I use Roku or AppleTV to watch Netflix, never a slow down.

Someone said that Microsoft runs through a proxy.

YukonHawk
join:2001-01-07
Patterson, NY

YukonHawk

Member

In the end.....

The only thing that matters is we ALL have a lag and stutter free video stream coming to our HDTV's! (?) No matter how you slice it prices are going up and we get hit in the wallet. The ISPs and everyone else involved will make sure of that to ensure their piece of the pie doesn't get taken away from them.

POW
@opera-mini.net

POW

Anon

Bad for Consumers Long Term

Netflix caves in to the Tier1/ISP extortion demands to satisfy customers with poor video streaming quality. Some say who cares if the middleman Cogent is eliminated? Give it 6-12 months and see what happens to prices when Tier1/ISP wants more $$ from Netflix.

FCC is useless. A good case can be made that Tier 1 transit companies should not be allowed to own any consumer ISP assests, in addition to ISPs not being allowed to own content companies. A net neutrality law is necessary for consumer protection and competition. A few emergency use exceptions can be included in such a law.

We're lucky here. Two cable ISPs are available. We just signed up for another year with WOW 15/1 for $37/mo. with no caps. It was $40/mo. last year. TW advertises $35/mo., but we're happy with WOW and streaming works 99% of the time. I prefer to support the "little" guy.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 edit

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Bad for Consumers Long Term

Comcast isn't a Tier 1 and they still got a deal because it made sense for both parties.

POW
@opera-mini.net

POW

Anon

Re: Bad for Consumers Long Term

You're right. So no Comcast transit is involved with Comcast/Netflix deal? Verizon and subsidiaries are a Tier 1 provider, but nothing is settled as of yet with Netflix.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

Hoo-Rah!

The sooner Netflix owns up to its responsibility to its customers, the better the product will become. Glad to see this nonsense coming to an end.
Mystic95Z
join:2005-05-10
Orlando, FL

1 edit

Mystic95Z

Member

Double dipping at it's finest...

I really hope the FCC puts something back in place concerning net neutrality.

Netflix pays its ISP for internet access, I pay my ISP (TW for the moment) for internet access, Netflix nor ANY other content provider should have to pay to a subscribers ISP for "better" access to the subscribers network.

This is nothing more than a money grab because the TV providers are scared of cord cutting, which I will be doing in August when my DTV contract expires. HD OTA antenna, Netflix, Hulu & Amazon + TW internet combined will be cheaper than pay TV alone.

•••••••
dsds
join:2014-02-10
Leavenworth, KS

dsds

Member

Looks like direct peering w/Comcast already running...

Tracing route to ipv4_1.lagg0.c198.ord001.ix.nflxvideo.net [108.175.38.228]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms wp.comcast.net [10.1.10.1]
2 39 ms 19 ms 28 ms 96.120.24.249
3 10 ms 12 ms 10 ms te-0-6-0-3-sur01.beechgrove.in.indiana.comcast.net [69.139.203.5]
4 16 ms 32 ms 31 ms te-0-10-0-2-ar01.kokomo.in.indiana.comcast.net [68.87.230.253]
5 25 ms 28 ms 27 ms he-1-13-0-0-ar01.elmhurst.il.chicago.comcast.net [68.86.189.121]
6 25 ms 27 ms 28 ms he-0-14-0-0-cr01.chicago.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.95.209]
7 26 ms 27 ms 39 ms 68.86.85.70
8 24 ms 24 ms 25 ms he-0-11-0-1-pe04.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.83.62]
9 67 ms 64 ms 66 ms as46281.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net [66.208.228.50]
10 65 ms 64 ms 66 ms ipv4_1.lagg0.c198.ord001.ix.nflxvideo.net [108.175.38.228]
bcltoys
join:2008-07-21

bcltoys

Member

We are next

Verizon will now start charging us to use Netflix on there network,Netflix will raise their price's this will get to be a big cluster F$$$. Internet in the US is about to get even more expensive.It's not just Verizon

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

KrK

Premium Member

The Floodgates are open

Expect big ISP's to figure they no longer have to pay peering costs---- everyone needs to pay them for "direct" connections.

First Netflix, next: Google, Amazon, Microsoft etc yadda yadda yadda.

•••