dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-05-06 10:34:12: While Netflix hasn't always stated this outright, their accusation in the recent interconnection scuff up with Comcast, AT&T and Verizon is that those companies are intentionally letting peering points with select companies saturate. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · next


nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
kudos:2

Curious...

As far as I'm aware, this isn't happening in Canada. At least not to this extent. I wonder if that's because the Big 3 are too stupid to do this, or they're afraid they'll receive a lashing.
--
Weeeeeee


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

3 recommendations

Give them time.

rebus9

join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Bright House
reply to nekkidtruth
said by nekkidtruth:

As far as I'm aware, this isn't happening in Canada. At least not to this extent. I wonder if that's because the Big 3 are too stupid to do this, or they're afraid they'll receive a lashing.

Could also be a function of caps. Don't the major Canadian ISPs impose some pretty low caps, or do I need to drink a few more Diet Cokes before I post this morning?


cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27

They're clogging our tubes!

...we'll just close those valves a bit...
--
Splat


nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
kudos:2
reply to rebus9

Re: Curious...

Yes and no. They've been offering Unlimited tiers for a while now. The TPIA's have had unlimited for years though.
--
Weeeeeee


cpsycho

join:2008-06-03
HarperLand
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

Im mixed

To me this is like saying my internet connection is getting slower from the people using it in my house and demanding payment from my ISP to fix it instead of me paying for an upgrade to the next tier (if I am wrong then I am wrong). But on the other hand if netflix is their own ISP and connects directly with level 3 the ISP for ISP's Then Level 3 is kind of in the wrong. But Comcast is benefiting from netflix, a reason why people get the internet in the first place.

Honestly if I were netflix I would have sent out a mass email to my customers. Letting them know they can no longer sell netflix on comcast networks. Comcast would have shot them self in the foot. Sometimes its better to call a greedy poker players bluff then fold on his raise. Netflix still has the option of doing this. Comcast would back off then, for fear of losing customers to other providers.


Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

1 edit

2 recommendations

I agree, but I would have suggested that Netflix go one further by suggesting that their Comcast customer use VPNs to avoid the problem and demand compensation for not getting the service they are paying for. Using a VPN resolved the Netflix issues I was seeing.

By paying Comcast Netflix set a precedent and now everyone is going to attempt to extort money from Netflix. Netflix needed to call Comcast on punishing their joint customers by allowing their interconnects to become saturated. Causing a public relations issue for Comcast, especially now since they are trying to buy Time Warner, would have been a much better strategy.

In the end the people who are going to be paying for this are Netflix customers.
--
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something." - Robert A. Heinlein


OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH

3 recommendations

reply to cpsycho
Netflix is paying for a sufficient outbound connection, the issue is when that traverses L3's backbone to the interconnect with the end users ISP, lets say its AT&T.

Netflix is connected a 10Gigs yet AT&T is only taking in L3's traffic at 1 Gig which is 90% used. L3 has asked AT&T to increase it to say 10Gig, and AT&T wants paid to do that, since they see 95% of the traffic is a competing service. What they (AT&T) fail to understand is that the 5% of other traffic is important as well, and is impacted just as much.

The current model now is this: Netflix needs to send 100GB of data to their end user, They pay L3 to serve it up, paying lets say $10.00. L3 transports the data on the backbone and links up to the end users ISP: AT&T. L3 pays AT&T $5.00 to pass on the traffic. In a unrelated transport, AT&T needs to send traffic onto L3's backbone for lets say a OneDrive customer uploading 100GBs, AT&T pays L3 $5.00 to hand it off, making the net transactions $0.00.

Thats the whole concept of free interconnect, the data back and forth will balance out, if not messed with, having both bare a near equal cost to move the traffic around.


michieru
Premium
join:2009-07-25
Miami, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
reply to cpsycho
Even if you were to call out Comcast you still cannot switch to another carrier. A perfect example is me living in Miami. I have only really two options and that's AT&T U-Verse at 6Mbps. Or Comcast. WISPs are located farther south while I am directly in the city. Getting satellite from Exede does not work in my case either since I use Netflix and Amazon Prime.

So at the end of the day a magical network wouldn't appear tomorrow or a couple years from now. So Netflix doesn't really have an option at all.


nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to cpsycho
The problem is, Netflix is the only one who's vocal about this issue right now. Netflix really had no choice but to concede and set up an agreement directly with Comcast or risk losing those subscribers. It's easy to say "Dump Comcast!" (and I would have done the same haha), but to do it is another thing entirely and as much as I hate to say it, most people would continue with their ISP who may very well not be having issues with any other part of their service.

This would be a whole other story if Netflix, Steam, Twitch and a slew of others were being treated the same. This whole issue is about net neutrality and I fear that Netflix may have just set the precedent for that. A bad one.
--
Weeeeeee


buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20
Limestone, ME

5 recommendations

Demand

The law of supply and demand.

It works heavily in your favor when you have the power to manipulate the supply.

ITGeeks

join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH
reply to nekkidtruth

Re: Im mixed

And yet you have Netflix off signing direct peering agreements with the MSOs and VZ. They aren't too vocal about it anymore since they decided to skip the CDN route and peer directly- which would have been their better option from the start.


nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed

1 edit
I don't think they should have done this from the start. It is the ISP's responsibility to ensure they are providing the best possible service to their customers. If that means they have to buy a bigger pipe, so be it. Technology changes and the needs of your customers also change.

Netflix would have already been paying for their large pipe into Level3 or any of their other peers. Why shouldn't Comcast or any other ISP pay for a larger pipe if it's necessary?
--
Weeeeeee

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to nekkidtruth

Re: Curious...

You are being disingenuous. The VAST majority of the Canadian plans out there (and ones with regular speeds) have extremely low caps for DIRECT customers. If they go to TPIA or DSL one can have plans with reasonable caps ONLY because the CRTC regulates the wholesale rates.

Before I switched the parents from Rogers to Bell to Teksavvy the MOST they has was 30GB and that was for $55. They now pay $32 for 300GB and 6/.256. The upload really sucks but for their needs it works. On top of that they use VOIP and it works just fine. Rogers used to charge $40 for a landline (VOIP landline BTW), now they pay under $10.

Competition has opened up now because people are beginning to understand just how expensive these legacy carriers are. Another impact was that once they moved from Bell to TS, after a year they decided that they also didn't need cable (they could stream) and now Bell has lost both internet and TV--over $120/mo in revenue, now down to $35 (after HST).

I hope people keep calling out these operators for what they are, and continue to speak w/ their wallets.

If this gets worse w/ Net Neutrality the government will eventually be forced to regulate, and the best antidote would be to have wholesale access like in Canada, except the issue of last mile touching the prem is a nightmare.


nothing00

join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

2 edits

5 recommendations

reply to OSUGoose

Re: Im mixed

said by OSUGoose:

What they (AT&T) fail to understand is that the 5% of other traffic is important as well, and is impacted just as much.

You're getting it completely wrong. AT&T absolutely does understand that there's 5% of traffic that's "innocent" and impacted. They simply don't care because the people that are being impacted have no alternative for Internet access.

edit: Even at prime time it's not 5% of non-Netflix traffic that's impacted it's over 65%. That's right, AT&T is willing to harm 65% of customer traffic to mess with Netflix.

said by OSUGoose:

Thats the whole concept of free interconnect

Your description is a distortion and not accurate. "equal" isn't a required element of peering and never has been. There are many reasons to enter into a settlement free peering agreement. And it's completely irrelevant here because there is no transit and equal arrangement possible with a residential ISP.

If the connection endpoint is in your network you should bear the cost. Simple. Easy. Endpoints in residential ISPs networks (called customers) pay their bills and it should cover the cost of providing proper access to the rest of the Internet.


ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

6 recommendations

reply to cpsycho
said by cpsycho:

Comcast would back off then, for fear of losing customers to other providers.

The whole reason Comcast is in a position to bully Netflix (and any other content provider) is because in most cases there are NO other providers for their customers. Do ya get it?
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp


ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT
reply to buzz_4_20

Re: Demand

Exactly.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to ITGeeks

Re: Im mixed

You should read up on captive market. The ideal option is open competition. However Netflix, etc are backed into a corner because they are driving a bus--say Greyhound--and the only supplier of new tires is Comcast and Verizon.

Just in case: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captive_market

Potential customers who are constrained to purchase a good or service from a particular supplier because of *****(1) shortages*****, (2) competitors' high prices, (3) lack of competition, *****(4) unique feature or benefit of the item*****, or (5) *****the seller owning the buying entity******

The operators have 3 of the 5, with the worst being 5.

The government outlawed the other manufacturers (franchise agreements) because all new tires must have TPMS and only Comcast and Verizon are qualified to make them, and each one is proprietary. As part of the government granting monopoly status, the tire store has to give free tires to all of the government fleet cars as a kickback. No worry--in the franchise agreement--the tire company can pass the cost of the tire kickbacks back to the consumers in the form of a "road use fee".

Sure you can go out to the junkyard and get a used Cogent or Level3 tire, but you have to search around for one, and the tread just isn't as good as when the tire is new. It could burst any day. Verizon and Comcast however warrant that new tire for the duration of the contract, and of course it's brand new...

Now should Greyhound just suck it up and buy the tire--because they are in the bus business not the tire business--and pass the cost on to the consumer, or should they employ people to go search junkyards for used tires which while it saves money upfront creates lots of liability (a flat--congestion) If there is a flat or a customer waits on the bus 2 hours for another to come buy and gets dissatisfied and never uses Greyhound (Netflix) again.

Also w/ the used tire, no warranty. With the new shiny Comcast or Verizon tire, they actually put two tires on the bus on each rim (aka 2 10GB connections), just in case on breaks, and if there is an issue they have a helo that comes and swaps out tires 24x7, included in the contract of course.

You get my point?


nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to elefante72

Re: Curious...

How am I being disingenuous? Rogers and Bell have offered Unlimited for nearly 2 years now. It was at a cost ($10 bundled with 2 other services or $30 otherwise) on top of their usual tiers.

I also made it perfectly clear that TPIA's have offered Unlimited for years. I agree that people are starting to open up their eyes (and that's definitely a good thing).
--
Weeeeeee


Frank
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere

2 recommendations

Obviously

If popular streaming sites stream like crap over an isp but the issue is magically fixed using a vpn or a proxy then the issue is with the isp.


nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
kudos:2

1 recommendation

I don't think anyone was ever disputing that though. We all know it's the ISP's issue. Level3 was just confirming it publicly.
--
Weeeeeee


Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

2 recommendations

reply to ITGeeks

Re: Im mixed

The problem for Netflix is that they have competition. The ISPs doing this don't. So if Netflix doesn't sign an agreement with the ISP but their competitor does, they might lose business. Meanwhile the ISP isn't risking any of their customers fleeing since their customers (for the most part) don't have anywhere to go.
--
-Jason Levine

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY
reply to nekkidtruth

Re: Curious...

Ill statement. I should have prefaced at a reasonable cost. IMHO the TPIA is great for Canada, and proof is that the rents internet cost less than in the states now. There are some real good competitors out in that space, and they are forcing the operators to compete, where in the past it was a nightmare...

For instance 30/5 rogers unlimited is almost $90 (not exactly cheap), under TPIA. Ebox has a 25/2 (not the same) for $25 to $45 for 1 TB--essentially unlimited.

In my case in the US, I have Verizon or TWC (both unlimited) but the 25/2 would cost be like $60 and Verizon 50/25 would nab me for $80. There is NO choice outside of that.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5

So are they going to name names?

Or just imply that nothing is their fault EVER because any time there is a problem it's the fault of the wife beating, tax cheating, low life ISP's.

guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 recommendations

Read this for Facts, Not Fiction

»blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/···ers.html

This is not an ISP issue, its the middle man trying to over sell there connections and underbidding netflix traffic.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

3 recommendations

Level3: This means war!!!

So what they are really saying is that they are pissed that Comcast and Netflix cut them out of the middle. Now they are going to stomp their feet and stick out their bottom lip.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to elefante72

Re: Curious...

I agree 100% that TPIA's are great for Canada. They have absolutely helped with changing the market. But if we're going keep things real, there are a lot of things that come into play when deciding between TPIA's and the incumbents, it's not just about price.

Numerous TPIA's have stability issues (a large portion of which are due to the incumbents). The cost of moving from one of the incumbents to a TPIA is also generally high (in some cases a couple hundred dollars). I would LOVE to move to a TPIA and have no issue paying the slightly higher start up costs (new modem and transfer fees and or installation fees). I do however take issue with stability. I will say that the TPIA's definitely work hard to resolve those issues though.

I've currently got my eye on Vmedia as their TV+Internet package is the same price I'm currently paying for Rogers Internet+Unlimited alone.
--
Weeeeeee


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

2 recommendations

There should be someone

There should be someone who works for an ISP who is willing to get fired for blowing the whistle on their nonsense behavior.

There have been some famous whistleblowers in the past that have put a stop to bad corporate behavior and the damage control portion (bad publicity) is what puts a stop to it.

I don't work for an ISP but there are people who do work for an ISP that probably don't think this is ethical to degrade performance of a connection that someone is paying for to extort money out of content providers/websites.
--
Stop the Comcast-Time Warner merger, I'd rather Time Warner buy out Comcast.


jlivingood
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:2

3 recommendations

reply to nekkidtruth

Re: Im mixed

said by nekkidtruth:

The problem is, Netflix is the only one who's vocal about this issue right now.

Netflix traffic is 1/3 of peak Internet use - it is without precedent, so there's no one really similarly situated.
--
JL
Comcast


nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Rogers Hi-Speed
said by jlivingood:

Netflix traffic is 1/3 of peak Internet use - it is without precedent, so there's no one really similarly situated.

This is certainly true but there are plenty of things on the horizon that will come pretty close. Game streaming among the top of that list. I just wish others had jumped on board with Netflix in this battle as it will very much effect everyone sooner rather than later.
--
Weeeeeee