dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
15
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Cambridge, MA

devnuller to whfsdude

Member

to whfsdude

Re: Request Thread: Netflix SuperHD/Open Connect

So unless you peer with me, I will selectively block your customers. Interesting NEW Internet model.

pflog
Bueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA

pflog

MVM

said by devnuller:

So unless you peer with me, I will selectively block your customers. Interesting NEW Internet model.

Again, where are they blocking you?

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo to devnuller

MVM

to devnuller
said by devnuller:

So unless you peer with me, I will selectively block your customers. Interesting NEW Internet model.

Blocking is the wrong way to look at it.

It's similar to the media companies that take down channels during negotiations to get you call up your cable / satellite company to threaten to cancel. The play is always to hold the downstream subscriber hostage to get the multichannel operator to make a deal they otherwise would be incredibly hesitant to make.

In this case, Netflix is using a carrot instead of the stick. Hey -- call up your ISP and ask them why they aren't on OpenConnect so you can get this SUPER COOL FANCY HD! It's completely free, and it even has "Open" right there in the name so you know it's a good community thing like opensource software.

Peering is all about connections between network operators that allow the downstream customers of each respective network to connect. Carriers like Cogent have to operate a large network with many downstream customers to gather up all that traffic to transmit to customers of Comcast/TimeWarner/etc. The equation tends to self-balance because the scale of operating such a large infrastructure limits how much you're going to exchange.

This, of course, all goes sideways when you talk about massive content engines as part of a CDN. Compared to operating a vast network, to stand up a CDN at major carrier neutral facilities is pennies to $20 bills. Servers are cheap, 10gig server interfaces are cheap, and LAN switches to transport bits within a single building are ridiculously cheap.

Comcast got into this spat a couple years ago with Level(3) when they wanted to dump an extra 100+Gbps into Comcast's network as part of their existing SFI agreement. This approach appears to be even worse for ISPs. Not only do they tie up ports at their major peering locations to a single upstream source (Netflix), but for their trouble Netflix will dump more bits onto their network than if they hadn't connected up in the first place.

I want you to let me use your car for free; as a bonus I'll always return it with the tank empty. For your trouble, however, I'll give all your friends rides and tell them what a great guy you are. Clearly you come out on the winning end of this arrangement.

pflog
Bueller? Bueller?
MVM
join:2001-09-01
El Dorado Hills, CA

pflog

MVM

said by SpaethCo:

I want you to let me use your car for free; as a bonus I'll always return it with the tank empty. For your trouble, however, I'll give all your friends rides and tell them what a great guy you are. Clearly you come out on the winning end of this arrangement.

Thanks, I was waiting for the car analogy. Pretty much sums it up.
FactChecker
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03

1 recommendation

FactChecker to SpaethCo

Premium Member

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

said by devnuller:

So unless you peer with me, I will selectively block your customers. Interesting NEW Internet model.

Blocking is the wrong way to look at it.

It's similar to the media companies that take down channels during negotiations to get you call up your cable / satellite company to threaten to cancel. The play is always to hold the downstream subscriber hostage to get the multichannel operator to make a deal they otherwise would be incredibly hesitant to make.

hmm... So if the Internet is going the Classic TV model, Netflix passes through all their expensive infrastructure, facilities, etc cost. Sort of a required "fee" for the privilege of new Netflix content. The ISP in turn is passing through these new costs to ALL subscribers (not just Netflix users).

This is kinda like the ESPN model where all users pay for the "channel" or content, whether you watch it or not

I can see a lot of content guys LOVING this model and shifting their growing infrastructure costs to ISPs while spreading it out to all customers.

Not sure how this plays out however in the long run. I wonder what a-la-cart advocates think about this.