dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-03-24 09:50:22: AT&T isn't much of a fan of Netflix's recent proclamation that peering arrangements should be protected under any new network neutrality rules. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


grydlok

join:2004-01-06
Richmond, VA

everyone pays

Who is getting rich?
Damn sure is not me.


gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

1 recommendation

We pay the bills...

Part of me, feels like, we pay the cost, no matter what happens in these types of issues, so why should I care?

Also, it's hard to support the idea, that the government should get involved with these types of issues, where its really two or more "private" companies with a dispute.

I also have a hard time swallowing that these types of issues should remain private between the companies involved. At the end of the day, its our money making ALL of this commerce possible.

Maybe everyone would stop being dicks if the rest of us knew what was really going on.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com


Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

9 recommendations

said by gatorkram:

Part of me, feels like, we pay the cost, no matter what happens in these types of issues, so why should I care?

We should care because the ISPs' dream is to make the Internet into Cable TV 2.0. Namely, you would buy a "Internet Package" that included the ISP's services as well as some big name sites that paid good money to get in the default listing. All other sites would be accessible but so slow that they would be unusable. If you wanted these sites to be sped up then you would need to purchase additional "ISP packages" and the content providers would need to pay the ISPs to be included in those packages. Cost for the Internet access AND cost for the Internet-based services would go up and innovation would be stifled as only the big boys would be able to afford entry into the packages.

said by gatorkram:

Also, it's hard to support the idea, that the government should get involved with these types of issues, where its really two or more "private" companies with a dispute.

Ideally, the government wouldn't have to get involved. In an ideal world, ISPs would have enough competition that doing something like slowing Netflix down to extort money out of them would cause customers to flee that ISP to a competing one. Unfortunately, that's not the market we have. Many people (myself included) only have one option for broadband ISP. The ISPs (mostly cable companies) know this and realize they can exploit their monopoly position for maximum profit.

said by gatorkram:

Maybe everyone would stop being dicks if the rest of us knew what was really going on.

Sadly, what's going on is that the cable company execs see their TV revenue being threatened. At the same time, they see Internet companies making money from the cable company's subscribers without the cable company getting a cut. So they resort to "that's a nice website you have... it'd be a shame if it slowed down to a crawl" tactics.
--
-Jason Levine


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

4 recommendations

Seems like a double standard to me....

To me Net Neutrality would mean that ALL traffic is treated the same as all other traffic. That being said Netflix is asking the ISPs to violate the very policy they are crying that ISPs are not following.

Netflix's demand that ISPs build out their networks so that Netflix's traffic can reach the end user with less congestion seems to me that they want special treatment of their traffic.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


derek_a

@bgainc.com

Arrogant?!

I'll tell you what's arrogant. It's AT&T or any large ISP thinking that they should be able to charge the sender and the receiver for the same data. I pay a whopping $60/month for a 15M/1M internet connection. Whether I use that data for Netflix or email or online gaming, I expect my data to get equal treatment. For the ISP to turn around and threaten Netflix with degraded speed just because they are a popular destination is ridiculous.


grydlok

join:2004-01-06
Richmond, VA

1 recommendation

reply to Jason Levine

Re: We pay the bills...

Sad part is I have 2 providers to choose from (Comcast & FIOS) but both where doing it so it didn't matter if I switched. Verizon kneecapped our third providers and they left the consumer market.


ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT
And that is the exact issue with monopolies/duopolies and why they are usually illegal.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp

desarollo

join:2011-10-01
Monroe, MI
reply to battleop

Re: Seems like a double standard to me....

That is an interesting way to look at it. I prefer to view it as Netflix is making the argument to my ISP in favor of me getting the bitrates sold to me at reasonable latency figures. Streaming video is sensitive to high latency and transfer rates, so it is sort of nice to have someone with a lot more money arguing that I'm not getting what I'm paying to receive.

Because, it isn't *just* Netflix that is affected by congested peering points. The data of many other sites flows through those interconnections, and they don't have the weight to complain about it.

Netflix had little choice but to pay Comcast because Cogent wasn't going to budge from its position. I am stuck dealing with Cogent's peering pissing matches for a customer of mine, and it is one of the many reasons Cogent is a cheap transit provider. But Netflix has opened up a Pandora's box for everyone, and the last mile ISPs are salivating over the prospects it brings.


ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT
reply to battleop
The real problem is that it is Netflix demanding it. If everyone* wasn't subject to a broadband monopoly/duopoly it would be the customers demanding it (or making it irrelevant by switching providers).
It is abuse of monopoly power, plain and simple.

* Pretty much everyone, except for the very lucky few.

--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp

masterbinky

join:2011-01-06
Carlsbad, NM

1 recommendation

They may be arrogant, but that's still saintly compaired to you.

WTF?! AT&T and ISPs are the postal service of information signals. The absurdity of their suggestion is that they want both parties to pay, as if I paid postage to send, and the other person payed COD to pick up. Only, both parties pay the full postage.. Great idea if you are aiming for a shameless money grab. My mind balks at how asinine his statement of "Mr. Hastings’ arrogant proposition is that everyone else should pay but Netflix" is. Besides the statement being a flat out lie. Netflix DOES pay for their content to reach their customers over the internet. They just don't pay you. Statements that AT&T is leveraging their customers to extort money from services like Netflix are more credible, which is reinforced by false and misleading statements. The whole thing should be a non-issue though since AT&T internet customers are paying... AT&T to get to content and deliver it from Netflix. They aren't paying AT&T because they want AT&T, but because they want Netflix and the stuff on the rest of the internet. If ANYTHING, AT&T should be paying Netflix, because it's what AT&T's customers are requesting. This is exactly why Internet service providers should be completely seperate from content companies. The company dislikes their own customer when the customer prefers content from anyone else, and the is too big of a motivation to disrupt or otherwise deliver less than optimal service that a customer they already have is paying for.

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

Re: Seems like a double standard to me....

Customers would demand Netflix be given free peering? I think not.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 edit
reply to battleop
That is their argument. Netflix may take up 40% of their bandwidth during prime, so if the exchanges get saturated it is up to the bandwidth providers to either pay for additional transit or for Netflix to look toward more direct jump points.

This board is littered with the bs that these arrangements are settlement-free peering. IT IS NOT. No f**king way. I haven't seen the contracts, but I know damn well this is not the case, and whomever propagates this stuff has little knowledge of transit cost structures.

It looks like Netflix is looking to more direct jump points which they can control more directly, and PAY for.

It is NOT clear that today Netflix is paying more for Comcast than to other providers (L3, Cogent, etc).

Most people on this board assume they are under balanced-trade peering which is simply NOT the case. They are most assuredly paying for transit bandwidth, plain and simple. It may be the case of L3 not wanting to add bandwidth to take away from their margin..

I think what will eventually happen is that Netflix starts adding their boxes in-net and then these connection issues mitigate OR they start doing direct deals w/ the operators. or both.

Netflix per se is a virtual CDN... They own no networks. All their services run on AWS and Openconnect CDN servers for providers that have the. So in a virtual world, you have to PAY for connectivity from AWS to the end user.

If you look at it these guys are consolidating so many are already tier1 providers with national networks, so it simply makes sense to have direct transit relationships with these guys and while we trumpet net neutrality the reality is that this is really the case if my operator (Verizon) is NOT traffic shaping my connection.

Now I DO think that these operators are acting like baby bells and letting these exchanges points explode, because they have the end-user advantage and are taking that to the max. Who wouldn't do that? You guys think CIX is still relevant, cmon. But a 10GB connection is a 10GB connection in one direction. If the 10GB downlink is saturated, and the uplink is at 5% (which it probably is) that is because video is a HIGHLY asymmetric profile.

Also the board is confusing net neutrality (which has to do with prioritization and traffic shaping -- that is in FULL force up in Canada) versus one single provider (Netflix) who is not managing their data needs correctly and is being pushed to the brink by the operators.

Long story short, eventually the end customer is going to have to pay for all these SuperHD streams and really pay for 4K. Ever notice how HD PAYG costs more than SD? Well it's partly profit, but it costs MORE to deliver.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

reply to masterbinky

Re: They may be arrogant, but that's still saintly compaired to you.

That's the thing. Netflix has said they do not want to pay anyone.

SunnyD

join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL

Interesting - make peering fair, except there's a TOS in the way.

Funny thing most last mile ISP's have explicit rules in their TOSes stating that end users can't serve content. Yet ISP's are complaining that peering for free isn't fair and equitable because of the amount of consumption. Yet they make it impossible to go the other direction.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
reply to battleop

Re: Seems like a double standard to me....

said by battleop:

Netflix's demand that ISPs build out their networks so that Netflix's traffic can reach the end user with less congestion seems to me that they want special treatment of their traffic.

Where is the congestion occurring? To me it seems like it's occurring at the transit/peering end, which is something that does not require significant capital to upgrade (compared to middle/last-mile infrastructure).

If Netflix is asking to peer settlement-free at a neutral facility where an ISP already has a presence, what's the build-out cost exactly?


Nameless

join:2014-02-25
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

reply to Jason Levine

Re: We pay the bills...

This is one of the most insightful posts I've ever read on this site, and it absolutely hits the nail right on the head.

This is EXACTLY what a lack of competition results in, and it will only get worse if the Comcast merger is allowed.

EDIT: btw I'm referring to Jason's post.


kontos
xyzzy

join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

Re: Seems like a double standard to me....

said by silbaco:

Customers would demand Netflix be given free peering? I think not.

Not exactly, but if there were a choice between several providers and they all sold 20 Mbps down tier, those providers that could provide 20 Mbps down when Netfilx hosted the content would have an advantage over those that today struggle to let Netfilx content flow at 2 Mbps (to their 20 Mbps customers).


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to BlueC
"what's the build-out cost exactly?"

Your costs are in adding capacity to your routers and the labor to go along with it along with the transport of that traffic deep into their network.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
said by battleop:

e in adding capacity to your routers and the labor to go along with it along with the transport of that traffic deep into their network.

Transport beyond transit/peering should not be a burden, if there is no congestion occurring already at those points.

Otherwise you're insinuating that an ISP would be blocking Netflix traffic outside of any direct peering relationship. If the ISP is not blocking the traffic, then that said traffic is already entering their network from another ASN.

That would also imply that they have sufficient capacity at the core level to support their subscriber's committed traffic levels, regardless of any peering relationship.

Peering should reduce latency and costs for all parties involved, that's usually the motivation behind it. It should not affect transport capacity at the middle/last-mile. Otherwise that means there is already insufficient capacity on the said ISP's network.

Coolbrz

join:2002-12-16
Kane, PA
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to elefante72
I agree pretty much with your explanation of it, but this again falls on the ISPs not being able to handle what they promise to their customers.

"Sure, we'll sell you 50meg DL at 60 bucks a month and you will see that speed all the time...as long as its on said ISPs network."

The ISP needs to cover the traffic that THEIR customers are requesting from netflix but they dont want to foot the bill to upgrade it. So you get what Comcast is doing, letting links saturate, moving traffic to overcongested links etc. then the customer is left in the middle.

Customer complains to Netflix, Netflix can upgrade all of their connections to any tier 1 provider or whatnot, but the issue remains getting onto Comcast network. Netflix tells the customers there isn't anything they can do (short of a direct connect to the ISP, which is where we are going now) and to contact Comcast.

Comcast tells the customer that they only can guarantee speed on their network, not out to the "internet", even if the problem lies with the connection between Comcast and Cogent/Tata/Level3

Comcast then turns around and when called out on it by Netflix they take the stand of Netflix is sending Comcast too much traffic? BS...Comcast customers are requesting it, its not like Netflix is dumping traffic onto Comcast to reach Verizon or something (this is why comparing this to cogent/L3 peering dispute that another poster did is idiotic, not referring to elefante72 at all).

While i disagree with this deal between Netflix and Comcast for the long haul of the internet, because the only people that are going to have to spend more money will be customers, it was really the only thing left for Netflix to succumb to.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to BlueC
"Otherwise you're insinuating that an ISP would be blocking Netflix traffic outside of any direct peering relationship. "

Where did you come up with that one?

"Otherwise you're insinuating that an ISP would be blocking Netflix traffic outside of any direct peering relationship. "

Yes, and it can be jumbled up with everyone else's traffic as it crosses the ISP's edge.

"Peering should reduce latency and costs for all parties involved,"

That's when there is a mutual benefit for both parties. A peering for a 1000:1 settlement free ratio isn't very beneficial for one of the two parties.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast

AT&T is right, you can't fix lack of competition with more regulations

AT&T is right that it takes money to add the hardware/bandwidth to support this. However, didn't Netflix offer to provide all of this "for free" to ISPs who would partner with them? AT&T is in the position that they don't really need to spend that money to make large profits. Being super profitable doesn't change the rules, they aren't required to spend money if they don't want to. If they can legally force people to pay them money, then they're going to do that.

The only way to fix this is if people have a few alternatives for the internet access to reach Netflix. Then AT&T would be shooting themself in the foot, and Netflix can work with a different internet provider.

YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

Peering arrangements and service delivery are blurred here

From what I understand, Netflix is paying enough to it's networks to have sufficient bandwidth. The networks Netflix buys from have to make sure it is available at THEIR interconnection points, not Netflix. If they fail to achieve this then Netflix should find other transit routes. Having many ways to get to Verizon is an acceptable thing. They should NOT have to pay Verizon directly. The same goes with Comcast, etc.

Now, as far as the customer goes, if you pay to have 25Mb/s then you should have 25Mb/s speed. If certain routes are a problem, then the customer needs to let his provider know it is a problem. If the provider says it is not their problem and the consumer disagrees, they can contact their local officials and the FCC, who will probably do nothing, but you can sure give them a headache (recommended).

Some day, the BS about bandwidth and availability will be a non-issue. That day will be when we go back to the open Internet where content is not the bait. We really only had it a very short while though. In the beginning ISPs had to pay for preferred transit to the CIX and other major hubs. There was no way around it. It went back that way it seems. Regression is not always a good thing.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
reply to battleop

Re: Seems like a double standard to me....

said by battleop:

That's when there is a mutual benefit for both parties. A peering for a 1000:1 settlement free ratio isn't very beneficial for one of the two parties.

A CDN having an interconnect with a (largely) residential-based ISP sounds inherently asymmetrical. Should Comcast's subscribers be sending Netflix traffic to make the deal fair?


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

reply to Coolbrz
"I agree pretty much with your explanation of it, but this again falls on the ISPs not being able to handle what they promise to their customers."

No, it falls on the ISP AND Netflix. They need to both work this problem out to take care of their mutual customer instead of pointing fingers back and fourth.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

masterbinky

join:2011-01-06
Carlsbad, NM
reply to silbaco

Re: They may be arrogant, but that's still saintly compaired to you.

ISPs complain that they dislike recieving high volume inter network data that netflix generates from the standard peering arrangements they have. Netflix offers a solution that doesn't cost Netflix money (Why should they pay to solve someone elses problem?), and solves that an issue ISPs have, while also providing additional benefits that can draw customers to that ISP.

It's not a solution the ISP likes if their real issue is that netflix is interrupting business interests that aren't simply providing the information their customer is requesting.


n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

Wait And See

For me, I'll wait and see. I have a low-end $7.99 Netflix account that is perfect for me. Now, should Netflix decide they need to add an ISP surcharge at some point, I may review my relationship with them. The problem is Netflix is agreeing to pay ransom. I already pay my ISP $60/month for 18/5 service. If they decide to start demanding that Netflix pay to reach me, which in turns means I will be paying twice to get content, then the FCC is going to have to step in.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

reply to BlueC

Re: Seems like a double standard to me....

"Should Comcast's subscribers be sending Netflix traffic to make the deal fair?"

No, that's why they are doing a paid peering arrangement. That evens it out to make it fair. Transporting 100Gb+ of traffic isn't cheap even if you are transporting the traffic across the hall.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

reply to Coolbrz
Netflix had plenty of options, like using 3rd party CDNs as many of their competitors do. Netflix used to and things worked well. Then they went about this game of trying to do everything themselves and things broke down so they blamed everyone else.

YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY
reply to derek_a

Re: Arrogant?!

Yes since they are giving you access to the Internet, not being a backbone, they need to do just that. I have been in the ISP business before. When a customer paid for a circuit, it better deliver. We made sure it did. Those days are pretty much gone, so now we just do Internet services like website hosting and the like. If you are in a rural area ISPs can still survive by wireless delivery, etc, but not in the New York market where we have been displaced by the big cable/telco gang. It is sad that we built it, then they took it right out from under us. They will burn themselves soon. We all look forward to that day.