dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-04-14 12:29:43: Netflix has released their monthly ranking of ISP streaming video performance, and not too surprisingly Comcast has seen huge gains in the rankings after signing a new interconnection deal with Netflix back in February. ..


redbeard916
join:2011-02-23
Folsom, CA

redbeard916

Member

..

This is good news.. They should be in top 5

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

IPPlanMan

Member

Much better now...

Netflix is much better now over Comcast. However, it was inexcusable how it was allowed to degrade to that level.

Cogentco
@verizon.net

Cogentco

Anon

Re: Much better now...

Netflix problems seem to go away after each of their negotiations... Good thing they control which ISP they use to deliver their traffic. How else could they maximize the negotiations?

Mr_Anon_Name
@cox.net

Mr_Anon_Name to IPPlanMan

Anon

to IPPlanMan
ISPs like hardball. So that's what Netflix did. Played on their level.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Much better now...

By bypassing the CDNs and dealing directly with the end-user ISPs?

Netflixspeed
@comcast.net

Netflixspeed to IPPlanMan

Anon

to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:

Netflix is much better now over Comcast.

Since Netflix and Comcast did this deal, the system consistently delivers no-buffering dropouts to my PC, tablets, and the AppleTV and Vizio TV internet apps.

On the Windows 8.1 laptop PC using the Google Chrome browser it uses Silverlight(boo!) to deliver content. It is limited by Silverlight to 1280x720 3mbps.

Silverlight in browser


On the same Windows 8.1 laptop using the downloaded Netflix app it delivers content at 1920x1080 5.8 mbps.

Netflix Windows 8 app

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

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Much better now...

Neat! Thanks for sharing.
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03

InvalidError

Member

Up 65%?

The proper way to calculate a change versus a reference value is (Value - Reference) / Reference, which makes it a 117% improvement over previous performance.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

2 recommendations

David

Premium Member

Amazing!!

I am just shocked what happens when you *cough* pay for peering!

The shock... the horror... oh noes!!

norm
join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA

1 recommendation

norm

Member

Re: Amazing!!

said by David:

I am just shocked what happens when you *cough* pay for peering!

The shock... the horror... oh noes!!

Netflix was paying numerous transit providers to deliver content to Comcast customers. Now they're just paying Comcast. It's not a matter of just now paying, it's a matter of changing who they're paying.

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

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Amazing!!

It's a matter of Comcast dictating peering terms directly rather than allowing a third party (Cogent) to deliver whatever traffic it was receiving from Netflix to Comcast. But don't call it a Net Neutrality violation...

norm
join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA

norm

Member

Re: Amazing!!

said by IPPlanMan:

It's a matter of Comcast dictating peering terms directly rather than allowing a third party (Cogent) to deliver whatever traffic it was receiving from Netflix to Comcast. But don't call it a Net Neutrality violation...

I never said it was a net neutrality issue. Also, I love that everyone always points the finger at Cogent when a lot of the traffic was delivered over alternative transit providers such as Level 3. It's just easier for people to go rabble rabble rabble Cogent, I suppose.

I would love to know what transit provider Netflix could legitimately use that is not an eyeball network as well. E.g., who could provide transit for Netflix to deliver content to Verizon customers that is not Verizon.

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

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Amazing!!

Who's pointing the finger at Cogent? Comcast was unwilling to upgrade the capacity of its peering point with Cogent and other third party network providers to accept all the Netflix traffic coming down the pipe.

You didn't call it a Net Neutrality violation. That's the problem.

norm
join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA

norm

Member

Re: Amazing!!

said by IPPlanMan:

Who's pointing the finger at Cogent? Comcast was unwilling to upgrade the capacity of its peering point with Cogent and other third party network providers to accept all the Netflix traffic coming down the pipe.

You didn't call it a Net Neutrality violation. That's the problem.

I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say - I apologize. I don't think Netflix is 100% innocent but I do believe they're a hell of a lot more innocent than the big ISPs. In regards to it being a net neutrality issue, I can't say one way or another that it is.

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

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Amazing!!

No apologies necessary!
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

2 recommendations

Skippy25 to norm

Member

to norm
Netflix is certainly 100% innocent.

They are only trying to deliver the bits that the ISP consumers are requesting. They pay for their bandwidth and have to pay for everyone of those bits to put them on the network.

It is the ISP's that are responsible for getting those bits from Netflix to the ISP's consumers once Netflix has put them on the internet per user request.

Netflix has been trying to help ISP's by offering methods to help alleviate the 3rd party transit problem. Many have taken them up on this. However, the big boys who want someone else to pay for their pipes are the ones holding Netflix consumers hostage. It is 95% the reason I just had Charter installed and my BluRay players use that connection and I no longer have the buffering issue I had with AT&T.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

2 recommendations

battleop to IPPlanMan

Member

to IPPlanMan
Cogent apparently did not negotiate their peering agreements in good faith.

I don't know the exact ratios but you can't negotiate an agreement based on a 1:1 ratio and then dump a 100:1 and expect the :1 to pay the difference. It's not a Neutrality problem it's a peering problem.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25

Member

Re: Amazing!!

You are ridiculous in stating that a transit company is responsible to negotiate with an ISP for equal traffic where the 1:1 ratio is impossible when the ISP doesn't even sell 1:1 connections to their consumers.

No matter how many times that stupidity comes from you mouth, it makes it no more true.

damnskippy
@pppoe.ca

damnskippy

Anon

Re: Amazing!!

So true.
accord1999
join:2011-10-14
Calgary, AB

accord1999 to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

You are ridiculous in stating that a transit company is responsible to negotiate with an ISP for equal traffic where the 1:1 ratio is impossible when the ISP doesn't even sell 1:1 connections to their consumers.

Yet if they have a peering agreement, then clearly the transit company must have negotiated an agreement for balanced traffic.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 edit

1 recommendation

Skippy25

Member

Re: Amazing!!

Yet, you clearly have no idea what a peering agreement is. Peering does not equal unpaid balanced traffic, especially with an ISP that receives much more traffic from a backbone provider because they sell asymmetric connections.

Regardless the fact remains: It is the ISP's customer requesting the traffic, regardless of who it is from, so it is the ISP's responsibility to make sure their network can handle the traffic that their consumers are requesting. If not, the ISP can either upgrade their network or find a way to discourage their users from utilizing the network they are paying said ISP for through price hikes or doing nothing and pissing them off so they leave. Of course, that depends if there is actually viable competition they can leave to. Which typically is not the case which allows the ISP to utilize their subscribers as extortion tools.

Move along until you understand the subject you are attempting to debate.
accord1999
join:2011-10-14
Calgary, AB

accord1999

Member

Re: Amazing!!

But clearly in this case, this is exactly what the peering agreement is about, balanced traffic. If the agreement allowed for unbalanced traffic, well then why didn't Cogent do something about it in court, it should be an easy to win case if they were in fact within the agreed upon ratios.

The fact also remains that it is also Netflix's responsibility to ensure that the data requested by its customers are delivered in an efficient and reliable manner based on whatever the current Internet conditions are not solely based on trying to minimize its own costs.

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

1 edit

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Amazing!!

Comcast wasn't willing to upgrade its peering point with Cogent to accept the volume of traffic its customers were legitimately requesting from Netflix.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to accord1999

Member

to accord1999
I see you did not take the advise of my very last sentence as you made yourself look even more foolish this time around. Well played sir.

Netflix has plenty of bandwidth to deliver what they need and they pay several companies to do it. The issue is not on Netflix's end, it is on the consumers end because the company that the consumer pays to give them access to the internet is not maintaining their connections as they should be.

You can try to dance around this all you want, but the actual fact (as opposed to your incorrect fact) is that it is the ISP's customer requesting packets and it is the ISP's job to make sure that their customer packets are delivered as they requested regardless of who it is from. That is the ENTIRE reason the customer of the ISP is paying them. That is a fact.

One last fact for you. If the ISP can't hand the traffic their own customers are putting on them then it is their responsibility to either improve their network to handle the traffic or reduce the traffic their customers request. There are creative ways they can do that but here are a few off the top of my head:
1.) Raise prices.
2.) Put a cap on their connections.
3.) Throttle connections.
4.) Do nothing.
5.) Block the use of bandwidth intensive apps.

Some may or may not go over very well with customers or regulators, but none the less they have options if they don't want to invest.
accord1999
join:2011-10-14
Calgary, AB

accord1999

Member

Re: Amazing!!

Please, are your argument so weak that you must continually resort to insults. I repeat, if Cogent has a peering agreement allowing it unbalanced traffic, then why haven't they gone to court with it.

And you forgot one option for an ISP:

6.) Instead of getting essentially paid nothing (except for some bandwidth handled in kind) for doing nearly all the work while a middleman pockets all of Netflix's payments, cut out the middleman, do all the work and get paid for it.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Amazing!!

Learn what an F'ing peering agreement is, then come talk.

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

fg8578 to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
Did you mean "asynchronous" or "asymmetric"?
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Amazing!!

Asymmetric of course.

My bad.

Cogentco
@verizon.net

Cogentco to IPPlanMan

Anon

to IPPlanMan
said by IPPlanMan:

Who's pointing the finger at Cogent? Comcast was unwilling to upgrade the capacity of its peering point with Cogent and other third party network providers to accept all the Netflix traffic coming down the pipe.

You didn't call it a Net Neutrality violation. That's the problem.

Wow! You are holding up Cogent as the "victim" in this... They have a loooooooong history here of blaming everyone except themselves for peering issues they caused by selling what they cannot deliver.

Why Netflix continued to use them even when they KNOW they sucked..... I can only speculate....

norm
join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA

norm

Member

Re: Amazing!!

said by Cogentco :

said by IPPlanMan:

Who's pointing the finger at Cogent? Comcast was unwilling to upgrade the capacity of its peering point with Cogent and other third party network providers to accept all the Netflix traffic coming down the pipe.

You didn't call it a Net Neutrality violation. That's the problem.

Wow! You are holding up Cogent as the "victim" in this... They have a loooooooong history here of blaming everyone except themselves for peering issues they caused by selling what they cannot deliver.

Why Netflix continued to use them even when they KNOW they sucked..... I can only speculate....

Can you give me a list of ISPs that Netflix should have used that aren't Verizon, ATT, or Comcast? I would love to know. I'm sure Netflix would love to know as well. They use quite a bit more than just Cogent.

damnskippy
@pppoe.ca

damnskippy

Anon

Re: Amazing!!

said by norm:

Can you give me a list of ISPs that Netflix should have used that aren't Verizon, ATT, or Comcast? I would love to know. I'm sure Netflix would love to know as well. They use quite a bit more than just Cogent.

Exactly, because Telia, Level3, Global Crossing, nLayer, XO, NTT, TATA, TInet, Hurricane Electric and CenturyLink are not enough.

Thinkdiff
MVM,
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY

1 recommendation

Thinkdiff to norm

MVM,

to norm
Gotta love the spin that ISPs put on the situation...

"Well, Netflix isn't paying us..."
wkm001
join:2009-12-14

2 recommendations

wkm001 to norm

Member

to norm
Comcast is cutting out the middle man. Cutting out the middle man does one of two things. Makes the company more money or saves the customer money. In this case I'm sure Comcast is making more money.

Comcast has some pretty smart folks over there. Constantly pushing the limits of what is acceptable. I fear the day when everyone in the US has to pay Comcast in some shape or form to connect to the internet.

•••••

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY

Packeteers to David

Premium Member

to David
instead of netflix paying for peering, comcast should be paying for positive marketing (by netflix).
RawHeadRex
join:2011-08-24
Richmond, IN

RawHeadRex

Member

Re: Amazing!!

What makes it even worse is that Comcast may have been intentionally slowing Netflix traffic in an effort to extract extra money.

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

IPPlanMan

Member

Re: Amazing!!

Well, not upgrading peering capacity to receive incoming legitimate traffic requested by your customers is intentional.

Yucca Servic
join:2012-11-27
Rio Rancho, NM

Yucca Servic

Member

Pay up

Now that the connection is better it's going to be time to pay up. transport of the Internet is not free.
The consumer is the one who will get it in the end!

•••

Cheeze_It
@qwest.net

Cheeze_It

Anon

Um...duh?

This is what happens when you peer with someone and allocate enough bandwidth....

What sucks is that this kind of peering is rarely free. Which is saddening...

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

Re: Um...duh?

"What sucks is that this kind of peering is rarely free."

Most Data Centers don't have a chimney so he can't bring us the free gear it takes to make this stuff work.

Jumithy
@mycingular.net

2 recommendations

Jumithy

Anon

Nn

Got to love all the net neutrality idiots who are too stupid to realize netflix is paying comcast less than they paid cogent

•••
RawHeadRex
join:2011-08-24
Richmond, IN

RawHeadRex

Member

Paid to Play

Just the beginning as the net-neutrality issue begins to rear its ugly head.

••••

Probitas
@teksavvy.com

Probitas

Anon

I'm your ISP

I just sold you on an internet service. You now have a connection to the internet. Oh what's that now, you want to USE the service? Well now, we have a range of services we can sell you as well. If you want we can sell you a connection to Netflix so you can use their service over our service, we also sell connections to other major stream providers. Browse our catalog online (free) and check it out!!! Ding Ding Ding goes the bell on the cash register.

Something stinks, and it's not the giant turd in the corner.