| |
to openbox9
Re: So have they signed an agreement or not?Agreed, right now.
But what happens in the future where NN has been bastardized so much that Netflix only has direct peering or the very little non-direct peering they have left gets bit starved by those ISPs as well when peering disputes happen.
Even now, if Comcast and Netflix have some big fight and Comcast pulls the plug on Netflix, where does that leave their millions of subscribers? It leaves them buffering, right where they were before they agreed to peer. |
|
|
1 recommendation |
WAH WAH WAHNothing but a bunch pissy ass, whinny babies!!!! Grow a set and act like adults!!!! Damn corporations!!!!!  |
|
Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI |
to Pathfinder5
Re: So have they signed an agreement or not?The proof is that Verizon isn't able to keep up even those it is ridiculously easy to do so.
You should see the tech that is currently available. A single router and 6 strands of fiber could handle ALL of the world's Internet as it is right now.
Newer tech will be able to handle 10x the current world's Internet over a single fiber has already had a fully functional prototype.
Verizon is just creating artificial scarcity.
As it stands right now, 1gb/1gb fiber to a multi-TERABIT router is running about $100 per port. Seeing that it costs about $2k to connect a customer to fiber, $100 is a rounding error.
1gb fiber has become so cheap, it's cheaper to use a 1gb port and rate limit it to 100mb than to purchase a 100mb port. |
|
| |
catchingup to batman
Anon
2014-Jun-10 8:53 pm
to batman
said by batman :And the reason Netflix is doing deals directly with ISPs and creating their own CDN is that the CDNs they did business with, like Cogent, gave Netflix a real low price, but then couldn't deliver the goods at that price. Cogent does NOT operate a CDN. People seem to be really confused by this. |
|
| catchingup |
catchingup to openbox9
Anon
2014-Jun-10 8:55 pm
to openbox9
said by openbox9:Luckily, there are often several routes around the Internet. The major ISPs tend to have more than one route so I doubt you'll need to worry about your Netflix "channel" being pulled, unless Netflix ties its own hands. That is a black and white statement that is not always true. |
|
 FrinkProfessor
Premium Member
join:2000-07-13
Scotch Plains, NJ |
to Bengie25
Wow...wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144
3 recommendations |
to Skippy25
What happens if "net neutrality" doesn't change and the Internet continues operating as it has since inception? Netflix can, gasp, always force its transit providers to uphold their agreements and do what needs to be done to deliver the bits. |
|
| openbox9 |
to catchingup
I said "often" and "tend to" so I think my statement accounts for most situations. It wasn't meant to encompass every possible scenario on the Internet. |
|
| openbox9 |
to catchingup
Technically correct, but it does colocate services and provide transit. What about another Netflix partner, Level 3? |
|
openbox9
1 recommendation |
to catchingup
Really? Can you provide examples of other major telcos that will engineer and implement interconnections in a fraction of the time? What's the typical time for other telcos? |
|
| |
to ITALIAN926
Re: Cant always applyAlthough these same customers can stream from Fox, Hulu, Amazon just fine. I doubt it's what you're saying. Its simply the ISP's being greedy assholes and trying to double dip the customer and content provider by charging a toll at both ends of the pipe.
The customers already pay out the nose for the bytes and then the ISP is trying to charge a 2nd time to another party for the SAME DATA.
That's like me mailing you a letter, me paying postage but for you to actually receive the letter, you'd have to pay postage a 2nd time to have the mailman give it to you. |
|
ITGeeks
join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH
1 recommendation |
to UnnDunn
Re: So have they signed an agreement or not?Installing a peering point isn't all that easy if they aren't already in the same POP. |
|
| ITGeeks |
to catchingup
And generally it is. |
|
ITGeeks
1 recommendation |
to openbox9
TWC (even though not a telco) it can take up to 8weeks and that is even co-locating in the same data center where they have a POP. There is a whole process that needs to be done. |
|
 jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
to openbox9
said by openbox9:What happens if "net neutrality" doesn't change and the Internet continues operating as it has since inception? Netflix can, gasp, always force its transit providers to uphold their agreements and do what needs to be done to deliver the bits. Netflix doesn't have the market dominance to force anything. There are plenty of competitive transit providers available for them to select, at least when compared to a US consumer's ISP choices; however, it makes little difference which transit provider Netflix uses, as any large ISP with market dominance can allow congestion to degrade the service. Netflix has only one real choice, and even then they are still getting dicked around. They have to give money to these ISPs or lose business. These ISPs don't have the same problem. If they piss off their paying customers, what the hell can their customers do about it? |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144
1 recommendation |
openbox9
Premium Member
2014-Jun-10 11:14 pm
said by jmn1207:Netflix doesn't have the market dominance to force anything. No dominance needed since I'm assuming they have contracts/agreements with their CDN and transit providers. said by jmn1207:however, it makes little difference which transit provider Netflix uses, as any large ISP with market dominance can allow congestion to degrade the service. That's not Netflix's issue. That issue is for the transit providers to solve. Netflix should be poking its service providers, which it doesn't appear to be doing, at least publicly. |
|
jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
jmn1207
Premium Member
2014-Jun-10 11:36 pm
said by openbox9:That's not Netflix's issue. That issue is for the transit providers to solve. Netflix should be poking its service providers, which it doesn't appear to be doing, at least publicly. It can't be fixed without paying double dipping money to a large ISP with market dominance. That is the problem. Charging at the edge when the ISP is also selling video should be a violation of net neutrality, but the entity that would otherwise regulate this is completely in the pockets of the violators. This hurts consumers. |
|
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144
1 edit
1 recommendation |
openbox9
Premium Member
2014-Jun-10 11:53 pm
said by jmn1207:It can't be fixed without paying double dipping money to a large ISP with market dominance. I truly don't understand this continued mantra of double-dipping. It's not double-dipping. Netflix pays a middle man to accept bits and pass them around the Internet. The middle man pays to connect to other middle men and/or end points to pass those bits off. Historically, those middle men have agreed to exchange bits at no cost because the exchange was mutually beneficial. That ideology is changing and now the rise of paid peering is coming about. |
|
| |
catchingup to openbox9
Anon
2014-Jun-11 1:16 am
to openbox9
said by openbox9:Technically correct, but it does colocate services and provide transit. What about another Netflix partner, Level 3? It's just plain correct. You make it clear you don't know what CDN means or how they work. Mentioning co-location and transit is irrelevant. Yes, Level 3 does operate a CDN service which they acquired from SAVVIS. |
|
| catchingup |
catchingup to ITGeeks
Anon
2014-Jun-11 1:18 am
to ITGeeks
said by ITGeeks:TWC (even though not a telco) it can take up to 8weeks and that is even co-locating in the same data center where they have a POP. There is a whole process that needs to be done. That is called epic fail. That is pathetically slow. A whole process of slow dragging their feet. |
|
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144 |
to catchingup
You make it clear that you didn't read my comment. I agreed with you. |
|
| openbox9 |
to catchingup
So, do you have shining examples of telco efficiency? |
|
| |
anonomeX
Anon
2014-Jun-11 6:10 am
So, how can you tell a Verizon rep is lying?His lips are moving.  (I guess they all went to lawyerin' school. That's where they tell you that the best way to deal with your victims is to accuse them of the things you yourself are guilty of. Verizon has become the master of the "false witness" technique.) |
|
| |
to openbox9
Re: So have they signed an agreement or not?It has already changed by the ISPs extorting money out of a content provider. So your hypothetical "staying the same" is already invalid. |
|
| Skippy25 |
to openbox9
You are right it is not a Netfix problem. It is a problem for the ISP to fix by upgrading their network or making their subscribers use less data. How do you suppose they do that? Personally, I recommend raising prices or slowing actual speed sold so they can request less bits. |
|
Skippy25
1 recommendation |
to openbox9
Because double dipping is exactly what it is. For an ISP that pretty much only request bits, it is the way their connections are sold to consumers, that is the way it still is and ALWAYS will be.
Why is this issue only an issue with what 6 ISPs in the entire world? |
|
jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA |
to openbox9
said by openbox9: Historically, those middle men have agreed to exchange bits at no cost because the exchange was mutually beneficial. That ideology is changing and now the rise of paid peering is coming about. Larger ISPs with little to no competition in the regions they have sliced out and serve, such as Comcast, have discovered that they can withhold access to their customers to extort content providers and bully global transit providers into paying them for a service that should already have been paid for by Comcast's customers. This hurts consumers and only helps Comcast, which already has way too much control in the market and is active seeking even more control. Comcast should be considered a customer to transit providers, not the other way around. In one comment, you claim this is business as usual and it has always worked the way it does now with Comcast. Then you state in another that historically the middle men have agreed to exchange bits at no cost. In the UK, and many other places throughout the world, if an ISP sees increased congestion, they use the money they collect from their paying customers to remedy the issue. Otherwise, the customers will choose a different ISP that is taking care of their paying customers. Links to reports have been posted many times in our various discussions showing that congestion does not occur at anything close to the same level in these regions where competition exists. Your position in this matter is decidedly for those conglomerate ISPs that enjoy market dominance and spend an embarrassing amount of money to ensure that no competition can impede on their march toward monopolistic control. I maintain that the current change in ideology, as you put it, is damaging innovation and ultimately hurting the consumers. |
|
| |
to openbox9
Unfortunately I would have to agree with you on this one.
That would be like trying to find the shining examples of TWC or Comcast having great customer service.
I really think it would be easier to track down big foot or the Lochness Monster. |
|
Timmn
join:2000-04-23
Tinley Park, IL |
to biochemistry
Re: ForumSince in many markets where Verizon operates, it has little, if at all, competition, Verizon doesn't have to care about it's customers, they operate on the idea that "If you want an internet connection, you pay what we want, and you take what we give you."
They don't want their customers to access Netflix for "free". It wouldn't surprise me at all if, at some point in the future, in addition to charging Netflix for access to their network, they start charging their customers a "Netflix access fee".
|
|
| |
to Pathfinder5
Re: So have they signed an agreement or not?Hmmm....the inability to keep a quality streaming video experience comes to mind. |
|
(I guess they all went to lawyerin' school. That's where they tell you that the best way to deal with your victims is to accuse them of the things you yourself are guilty of. Verizon has become the master of the "false witness" technique.)