 SeleniaGentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR |
to BonezX
Re: Blame the customersNot the way the internet works. Netflix chooses its transit providers but Verizon chooses, in part, the number of ports they have with X or Y transit provider that traffic reaches them on. I do believe Netflix is playing politics with its customers by constantly changing routes with their heavy traffic for free or low cost peering. But I do feel Verizon is just as wrong pretty much saying customers have to live with it though they pay for certain speeds. That is why last miles should not also be transit providers. Sort of conflict of interest where problems in their transit business affect their residential internet business customers. Remember Comcast customers had the same issue. Yes, Comcast is a cable company but they don't offer Redbox, etc. Many other providers without issues are cable companies too. They do, however, offer transit unlike some cable companies without issue which makes them more like a Verizon. |
|
 BonezXBasement Dweller
Premium Member
join:2004-04-13
Canada |
BonezX
Premium Member
2014-Jul-20 12:56 pm
Netflix can't alter where the traffic enters the Verizon network, the Verizon internal routing dictates where the traffic exits and enters their network.
The data request originates on Verizons network, leaves the network through a pre-selected node based on their routing table and on to L3's network, that request is received by Netflix and a response follows the same route back to the customer, the congestion is when Netflix traffic transfers back onto Verizons network following the same path that the request packet.
by altering the route off Verizons network by use of a VPN it completely fixes the issue, yet if the client directly sends a Netflix request through Verizons default routing it ends up going through a congested node.
Netflix may be playing politics, but Verizon has a personal interest for the service to run poorly on their network because they are in partnership with a competing service, Verizon and Netflix signed a deal in April of this year to resolve issues, and Verizon hasn't held up their part of the bargain, just like they didn't in NYC and PA. |
|
 fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX |
to BonezX
said by BonezX:So here's a scenario, Pennsylvania worked out a deal with Verizon, the deal was to wire the entire state with fiber(deal was made in 1994) in exchange of over $2billion worth of tax breaks, the tax breaks were to fund the installation of the systems across the state and would open them up to the entire state as a market. I've heard this urban myth more than once. Do you have a cite for these alleged "tax breaks"? |
|
BonezXBasement Dweller
Premium Member
join:2004-04-13
Canada |
BonezX
Premium Member
2014-Jul-20 2:01 pm
said by fg8578:said by BonezX:So here's a scenario, Pennsylvania worked out a deal with Verizon, the deal was to wire the entire state with fiber(deal was made in 1994) in exchange of over $2billion worth of tax breaks, the tax breaks were to fund the installation of the systems across the state and would open them up to the entire state as a market. I've heard this urban myth more than once. Do you have a cite for these alleged "tax breaks"? » Picture Perfect Dealit was reported and covered right on this site. |
|
fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX |
fg8578
Member
2014-Jul-20 2:45 pm
Thanx for the link. As I suspected it relies on a Bruce Kushnick report which I've debunked before. I don't suppose you actually read the 45 page report that this article links to? If you did, you'd see the alleged "tax breaks" are nothing more than accelerated depreciation which is a standard feature of the FEDERAL tax code, not a special "gift" from the state of Pennsylvania as Bruce would have you believe; states don't have the authority to authorize such deductions, unless it is a state deduction against state income taxes (I don't know if PA has a state income tax, but nowhere in his 45 pages does Bruce say whether this is for state or federal purposes. If it was for state, I'm sure he would have said so, as that would support his case. But I suspect this is actually a federal deduction and the reason he hides that little fact is that it does not support his case. And if you know anything about accounting, you'd know that SFAS (Statement of Financial Accounting standards) No. 71 is an accounting standard that publicly traded companies like VZ must follow by law. Bruce complains that VZ derived some benefit from following SFAS 71; but, if the law requires them to follow it, then they must follow it regardless. But adherence to SFAS 71 has nothing to do with VZ's network plans in PA; it is an accounting standard that all companies must follow if it applies to them, but of course Bruce never mentions that, either. As usual Bruce plays fast and loose with his facts, and people too eager to believe his B.S. (like you and Karl Bode) don't look beyond the numbers to see if they actually mean anything. Bottom line: Pennsylvania did NOT give Bell of PA "over $2B worth of tax breaks" in exchange for a statewide fiber network. That came from following the Federal tax code and a generally accepted accounting principle (GAAP) |
|
|
| |
to AVonGauss
Re: Level 3 full of it.said by AVonGauss:So by your logic, all hosting providers should not incur any transit or data delivery expenses as those have already been paid by residential customers? Netflix pays their transit providers for access... Comcast and Verizon pay their transit providers for access... Just like Comcast and Verizon customers pay their transit providers (e.g. Comcast and Verizon) for access... Nobody's getting it for free, here. Comcast and Verizon are now demanding that either their respective transit providers (in this case, Level 3 and Cogent) being paying *them*, instead, completely ignoring the fact that Comcast and Verizon are customers of Level 3 and Cogent, and not the other way around; alternately, failing that, they want other Cogent and Level 3 customers, with whom they have no relationship and who have already paid Cogent or Level 3 to deliver that data, to pay them for the bandwidth used when their content is delivered by Cogent or Level 3. If you can't work out why that is, at the very least, illogical, there is no point in anyone here further conversing with you on this particular topic, you just aren't going to understand it. |
|
| BronsCon |
to Selenia
said by Selenia:It boils down to make little difference though you are technically right. But who pays Verizon for X speed tier? The customers. I say they have an agreement to keep there and not just to websites that agree to pay them for peering that happen to be popular. Level 3 and Cogent are perfectly able and willing to bring them the content and enough capacity. Verizon is unwilling to upgrade their links to meet the demand of their own customers unless the content company pays them again for peering. It's just plain wrong. Gives me more reason to never have Verzon as my ISP again if I can help it, other than my horrible experience when I lived in a small town. More to that point, so what if it's Netflix's traffic overloading the link? It's affecting *all* traffic over that link, and *that* is *Verizon's* problem. Netflix pays Cogent and Level 3 to carry their data, they're not getting anything for free here; why should they pay more, on top of that, so that all *other* data arriving at Verizon's network via Cogent or Level 3 can get through? They shouldn't. That's Verizon's responsibility. This isn't a Netflix problem; it's affecting *all* data flowing between Cogent or Level 3 and Veriozon. |
|
| BronsCon |
to desarollo
said by desarollo:My hope is that ... dicks ... explode ... in their face. Agreed. |
|
| BronsCon |
to FactChecker
said by FactChecker:Similarly, Comcast relies on Level 3 to reach any single homed Level 3 customers and Level 3 relies on Cogent to reach Cogent customers, etc, etc. Except that the *only* destinations reachable via Comcast and Verizon are Comcast and Verizon customers, respectively. If you're, say, Level 3 and you're pushing data through Cogent, you're probably not directly targeting a Cogent customer, but one of Cogent's customer's customers, who is paying Cogent's customer, who is paying Cogent, who you, Level 3, are peering with, because Cogent pushes a nearly equal amount of traffic back in your direction. There's a huge difference, you just don't understand the market well enough to see it. Tier 1 providers like Level 3 and Cogent only peer with other tier 1 providers; anyone else connecting to them, like Comcast or Verizon, is buying transit. |
|
| BronsCon |
to FactChecker
said by FactChecker:I keep going back to these labels are not technically accurate and do not support the argument. That's because the labels are intended for relationships and you're applying them to entire companies. Verizon operates two networks, a tier 1 backbone that provides peering and transit services, and an ISP network that provides wireless, dial-up, ISDN, DSL, metro-e, and fiber to end users and buys transit from several providers, including Cogent, Level3, and Verizon's own backbone. Verizon's backbone network does peer with Cogent and Level 3, but that has no bearing on the direct transit the ISP network purchases from Cogent and Level 3. |
|
| BronsCon |
to FactChecker
said by FactChecker:Because Verizon has a blend of residential and content and commercial customers.... similar to Level 3 that has a blend of residential ISPs, universities and content customers. What you're missing is that Verizon also operates two distinct networks. Some of those content and commercial customers share a network with the residential customers, which has a transit relationship with Cogent and Level 3; others buy transit from on the Verizon backbone, which has a peering relationship with Cogent and Level 3. And yes, it matters which of these networks originates the traffic. |
|
| BronsCon |
to FactChecker
said by FactChecker: One could also say that Netflix sold their customers a video service and is not living up to their customers by using their traffic and market power as a negotiation tactic with Verizon. Netflix has no relationship with Verizon. Netflix has a relationship with Level 3, Level 3 has a relationship with Verizon, and those are the two points where negotiations can take place. Since there is not apparent issue between Netflix and Level 3, that leaves Level 3and Verizon, both of whom have pointed to Verizon's own unwillingness to upgrade their links with Level 3 as being the issue here. Netflix is most certainly delivering adequate service to their customers; even to their customers who also happen to be Verizon customers. Before you disagree, answer these two questions: When a Netflix customer accesses their Netflix account via Verizon's network, what happens? (hint: they have a degraded and poor experience with frequent buffering) Now, what happens when that same customer accesses their Netflix account from outside Verizon's network? (hint: a much better experience) Keep in mind that this is not just affecting Netflix's traffic. This is affecting *all* traffic between Level 3 and Verizon. Since it's not affecting traffic between Level 3 and any other peering or transit point Level 3 maintains, that singles it out as a Verizon problem, plain and simple. |
|
SeleniaGentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR |
to BonezX
Re: Blame the customersNetflix mainly just chooses transit providers and can set up a routing table on their internal infrastructure to choose to send it over 1 or the other they directly peer with. Netflix could conceivably alter this table to send traffic over X provider with Y capacity into the Verizon network. Sure, Verizon can choose who to send requests outbound among their providers, but if no direct route is advertised to that provider, then traffic has to be handed off to another network. This is known as traffic manipulation. So if the Netflix data center has direct connection to Cogent and Level3, they are capable of determining which ISP handles routing the traffic to Verizon. They could distribute it evenly, or in a predatory move, distribute it all on 1 path. What we have is a bunch of finger pointing and not much facts. But is it not just as possible that Netflix is using customers as pawns by shaming certain ISPs and selling Open Connect? Aka virtually free peering that would give them a distinct competitive advantage both in transit costs and performance over other streaming hosts? Personally I don't trust Verizon or Reed Hastings. Just because everyone hates Verizon does not make them 100% guilty. It might be suspect that Verizon and other troublesome ISPs have video services they may want to protect(but just as many not troublesome ISPs do). But it is just as suspect that the problem only surfaces after Netflix drops traditional CDNs at about the time this performance issue happened, then goes to the press in a shame game, all the while essentially touting free direct peering(OpenConnect) as a solution to a problem that never before existed until they took over streaming. Yes, Netflix can choose which IP the stream originates from(read up on how CDNs work) and conceivably, the IP chosen(by DNS propagation from the root servers) can be set on the poor network path on the congested link. Then use public backlash to make the ISP cave to a deal nobody else can get. |
|
BonezXBasement Dweller
Premium Member
join:2004-04-13
Canada |
BonezX
Premium Member
2014-Jul-20 6:55 pm
Here is the thing though, Netflix signed a deal with Verizon already to solve congestion issues, and it may be tweaking things on their end, but it's already been proven that other ISP's have been the ones manipulating the situation(see how fast Comcast got after they were paid), and after they got Netflix to sign a deal the flood gates were opened and people were happy, but this doesn't seem to be the case with Verizon. |
|
SeleniaGentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2014-Jul-20 7:49 pm
Definitely not a Verizon fan here, but Verizon does everything at a glacial pace since the beginning of time. Comcast likely gave Netflix a sweet deal to shut the Netflix people up during merger time. A very small price for them to pay if they get TWC. I agree that Verizon would do well to make customers happy and rush along on fulfilling their signed deal with Netflix. But definitely not giving Netflix free peering(see OpenConnect) like they wanted before. It is, after all just as much Netflix's responsibility to responsibly route traffic from their end as it is Verizon's to ensure a decent customer experience. |
|
BonezXBasement Dweller
Premium Member
join:2004-04-13
Canada |
BonezX
Premium Member
2014-Jul-20 8:06 pm
Verizon isn't very high on the list of customer experiences, unless it's negative ones. |
|
SeleniaGentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR |
Selenia
Premium Member
2014-Jul-20 8:10 pm
I agree. I have stated numerous times at different opportunities that I would never deal with Verizon ever again, if it can, in any way, be helped. They are the bottom of my list plain and simple. I still try and keep my insights and comments fair and balanced. As I see it, while Verizon may share a chunk of blame and be acting shady as usual, things don't look that much better for Netflix's end when you put aside your like or dislike of the 2 companies and consider the possibilities and likelihoods. After all, that is all we got since both companies are hush hush as to hard technical details but loose lipped with finger pointing. |
|
| |
levelten to tmc8080
Anon
2014-Jul-21 12:10 pm
to tmc8080
said by tmc8080:The infrastructure is and has been paid for itself many times over. and YOU know the price and cost of building and maintaining said infrastructure? |
|
| |
to BronsCon
Re: Level 3 full of it. |
|
| |
Oh? So, someone needs to ask David Young what relationship Verizon has with Level 3, then, because he refers to them, first, as a CDN *customer*, then, as a peering *partner*, when, in reality, they are an upstream *provider* as far as the ISP side is concerned. Level 3 does offer CDN services, but not over the same links as peering and transit; if Verizon does sell capacity to Level 3 for their CDN services, this happens over dedicated links for that purpose and is irrelevant to their transit relationship.
In either case, they just made FiOS symmetrical, so if they want to start saying they peer with Level 3, I'm sure Level 3 won't mind; if you think for one moment that there won't be enough Verizon customers seeding torrents and backing up files to the cloud once they have symmetrical service to swing the numbers back in Level 3's favor... well... let's just say after the FiOS announcement, I'll be less than surprised to hear that Level 3 has simply decided to say "yeah, guys, you're right, let's be peers; here's you bill".
In case you missed how peering works, both sides provide equal capacity and, in the case of an imbalance, one side invoices the other for the excess traffic. Nobody is invoicing for excess traffic here, because it is *not* a peering arrangement, but a transit arrangement, wherein Verizon is the customer; what we have is a VP mincing words and hoping nobody will catch on. |
|
fg8578
join:2009-04-26
San Antonio, TX |
to BonezX
Re: Blame the customersThanx again for the link.
But really, you pick a Karl Bode article from eleven years ago and act like I should've been well aware of it? I do try to read most articles here but you'll have to forgive me if that particular one didn't come immediately to mind.
Still, I asked for a link and you gave it, so thanx. |
|
| |
to BronsCon
Re: Level 3 full of it.said by BronsCon:In case you missed how peering works, both sides provide equal capacity and, in the case of an imbalance, one side invoices the other for the excess traffic. Nobody is invoicing for excess traffic here, because it is *not* a peering arrangement, but a transit arrangement, wherein Verizon is the customer; what we have is a VP mincing words and hoping nobody will catch on. You are claiming that Verizon is a transit customer of Level 3? Can you cite the source of that intel? |
|
| |
Level 3, themselves. If you've been following this as closely as it seems you want us to think you have, then you've read it and don't need a reference.
The fact that Verizon's own Vice President of Federal Regulatory Affairs (David Young, the author of the blog post you recently linked to in this thread) can't seem to make up his mind about the relationship between his company and Level 3 *should* cause you to call into question pretty much everything he has to say on the subject. That it seemingly doesn't causes me to call into question anything *you* have to say. |
|
| |
Again... please cite the source (not repeat your statement) |
|
1 recommendation |
Well, first of all, I wasn't repeating myself, I was calling into question the veracity of David Young's own comments, which conflict with themselves within the very first paragraph of your linked post, which is merely a response to being called out on this make-believe blog post he posted last week: » publicpolicy.verizon.com ··· ion-mythIn that post, David Young states "the links from other transit providers (carrying non-Netflix traffic) to Verizon's network did not experience congestion and were performing fine." Note his use of the term "transit providers". That post is linked to from this post: » blog.level3.com/global-c ··· a-culpa/ which, in turn, is linked from the post you linked to. And, in response to the question posed in your PM to me: I can tell you with a very high level of confidence that Comcast and Verizon both purchase transit from Level 3 for their ISP networks (even without David Young's statements), because those networks do not meet Level 3's requirements for peering, which are published here: » www.level3.com/en/legal/ ··· -policy/Specifically, Comcast and Verizon's ISP networks do not meet qualification (j), in that those ISP networks do not "provide paid Internet transit services to at least 500 unique transit networks utilizing BGP on a global basis" Any further questions? |
|
| BronsCon |
To be clear, Verizon does not offer BGP peering at the consumer level (e.g. does not "provide paid Internet transit services...utilizing BGP") via *any* service it offers on its ISP network. It does do this via its backbone network (formerly UUNET), which does peer with Level 3.
All of this information is publicly available; if you really can't find it yourself, let me know and I will provide a comprehensive list of resources. |
|
| BronsCon |
Oops, I misspoke, I meant to say Verizon. I'd simply edit the post, but I don't want to be called out as trying to hide anything. |
|
1 edit |
to BronsCon
said by BronsCon:I can tell you with a very high level of confidence that Comcast and Verizon both purchase transit from Level 3 for their ISP networks (even without David Young's statements) Did you know that Verizon doesn't pay anyone for transit (aka Tier 1) » bgp.he.net/AS701#_graph4» en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ti ··· _networkThe transit providers Young was referring to were ISPs that Netflix was using (i.e, Netflix's transit providers, not Verizon's) While business arrangements are all under NDA, it is well believed that Comcast is a US Tier 1 and only has Tata as a transit provider to reach a few International sites » bgp.he.net/AS7922#_graph4. That said, who knows who pays whom No, but your answers did help explain a lot |
|
| |
You, again, are failing to recognize that Verizon operates two distinct networks: a backbone (e.g. tier 1 network, formerly UUNET before they were bought by Verizon) and an ISP network, which purchases transit from Verison'z own backbone, as well as a number of other providers. Verizon also operates AS702 and AS703: » bgp.he.net/AS702#_graph4» bgp.he.net/AS703#_graph4It is also important to note that, as far as those listings are concerned, "peer" means "BGP peer", as in "interconnect", and not "these networks have a balanced peering agreement in place". E.g. that is not a list of peering arrangements, just a list of interconnecting networks, useful for routing purposes. But, I do see that you are capable of looking this information up for yourself, so... there's that, I guess. |
|
| BronsCon |
Posted too soon... AS701-703 are Verizon's backbone, the UUNET acquisition I've mentioned (and are identified as UUNet in the listings) on various continents. Look at AS7192-7193, AS8106-8017, and AS18112-8115 for their ISP network (that's a subset - here's a full list: » bgp.he.net/search?search ··· t=Search ), and here: » bgp.he.net/search?search ··· t=Search for their wireless internet products. You can also search "MCI Communications Services" which will be listed as "d/b/a Verizon Business", since they also bought the MCI backbone a while back. Verizon Business, which operates the UUNet and MCI backbones, peers with Level 3. Verizon Wireless and Verizon Online do not; they buy transit, even from Verizon's own backbones. |
|
