dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4127
share rss forum feed

promisic

join:2013-10-13
19210

2 edits
reply to guppy_fish

Re: Verizon's supposed response on a netflix question

But balanced peering does not apply when your own subscriber requests content from the other network. Cogent or Level 3 does not use Verizon's network to transfer Netflix content to say, Comcast or Time Warner customer but to Verizon's own customer. There is no traditional transit of data in question. Verizon's network is terminating data for it's own subscribers (that had paid Verizon for the same Internet access in question and that is clearly not enough)!

And to be fair, Cogent has more mile and peer footprint than AT&T! What Cogent and Level 3 don't have and AT&T and Verizon do is lots of last mile end users to extort more money from Netflix and it's carriers by degrading their users video quality and experience.

Cogent even handles more peers and data that Verizon MCI/UUNET. See this article:

»www.renesys.com/2014/01/bakers-d···edition/


promisic

join:2013-10-13
19210
reply to guppy_fish

As for business facts, if some company tries to do this in Europe, it will be crushed like a bug by EU regulators.

But before that, it's customers will flee to nearest and fastest competitor. Some have tried that and got burned badly (like Free in France, T-Com in Germany has tried and got burned by it's customers and backed away)!


System
reply to codydog

(topic move) Hulu and Hulu app problems

Moderator Action
The post that was here, has been moved to a new topic .. »Hulu and Hulu app problems



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to guppy_fish

Re: Verizon's supposed response on a netflix question

at&t and Verizon like to think they own the internet. They certainly believe they should be the ones controlling it. They don't.

It's all very well for Verizon to cry crocodile tears and claim that Cogent and others owe them because the amount of data they carry is unbalanced. What is forgotten in this question is the data requests are being demanded BY Verizon customers who ARE paying for it. Verizon's job is to deliver them quality Internet access. If they can't stream the YouTube and Netflix they want, then it's Verizon's fault irregardless, and their problem.... Not Cogent's or Google's or Netflix's. Of course, Verizon, who wants to triple dip, sees things in their own unique way and doesn't seem to care of their customers are held hostage to their demands. That attitude only exists because insufficient choices exist for most Verizon customers to dump them entirely---- and they know it.

--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


promisic

join:2013-10-13
19210

2 recommendations

reply to codydog

Verizon and AT&T did get a regulatory slap in Europe for unclear and uncompetitive peering practices! In the end, they where fined and regulated!

»publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/en···gulation

»gigaom.com/2013/07/11/att-and-ve···n-deals/

promisic

join:2013-10-13
19210
reply to codydog

Even more excellent reading material:

»gigaom.com/2014/02/06/theres-som···-emerge/



Nick5

@verizon.net
reply to birdfeedr

said by birdfeedr:

As for VZ giving you a speed upgrade for the same price: dream on. Except for one instance, speed increases always come with a price increase. VZ is smart though, they offer a discount to offset the increase, but it's like the local crack dealer. The first one's free, and boy do you pay for it.

I'm sure there is a limit to how much speed Verizon is willing to dole out at each price point, but still wouldn't be surprised if they substantially increased speeds. Very few users use even close to the speeds offered, and with the whole peering debate that number is lower than it might otherwise be. I would love to see how many times I truly use the 50/25 connection. For the most part, a user upgrading just means VZ has to be able to handle a Speed Test and doesn't mean substantial additional network load.* I'm sure they would also love to run to the FCC and talk about how fast they are.

Broadband is becoming like all tech. At first specs are super important, but soon they just become a distraction used for marketing.

*Some hardcore torrenter is shaking their head and smiling right now.

guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

reply to promisic

said by promisic:

But balanced peering does not apply when your own subscriber requests content from the other network. Cogent or Level 3 does not use Verizon's network to transfer Netflix content to say, Comcast or Time Warner customer but to Verizon's own customer.

Alternet ( Verizon business ) is one of the main trunks for the US internet, its is NOT only for Verizon customers. It was UUNet -> MCI -> Verizon. This networks handles all US internet traffic, its NOT just Verizon customers which Verizon residential is just one part of the traffic.

The current US Internet Backbone is by these six carriers:

Level 3 Communications
CenturyLink
Vodafone
Verizon
Sprint
AT&T

The Cognet Verizon peering is saturated as the peering point is set to be a balanced load ( bandwidth ) as are all of the teir 1 peering points for the internet are. If a peering point becomes unbalanced, then its upto the network sending the unbalanced data to pay for that traffic, as any teir 2 would.

You all can rationalize this anyway you like, its how the internet has worked since the beginning and those the need connections , not provide transit like tier 1's pay to connect, based on data usage.

promisic

join:2013-10-13
19210

1 edit

said by guppy_fish:

...

Alternet is Verizon/UUNET!

Maybe in US it is relevant, but in the rest of the world not so much!

»www.renesys.com/2014/01/bakers-d···edition/

It is clearly NOT relevant for Netflix because Netflix uses Level 3, Cogent or Lime Light Networks to transfer its video content inside the US and beyond!

That model is going to history because of online video. Level 3 is recommending the usage of bit miles instead of equal traffic, because in the era of online video it is hardly possible to have equal traffic when one networks requests video content and the other is sending it based on its request!

In the end, we will see who will prevail!

guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:2

Correct, and these carriers are the bit whores, selling transit to Netflix that they can't deliver as the don't have the teir 1 peering capacity, its as simple as that.



Nick5

@verizon.net
reply to guppy_fish

said by guppy_fish:

You all can rationalize this anyway you like, its how the internet has worked since the beginning and those the need connections , not provide transit like tier 1's pay to connect, based on data usage.

Given the generally the small number of providers and services like Redbox Instant, are there any regulations on how these prices are set? Are the prices charged even public info? It seems like a textbook monopoly.

promisic

join:2013-10-13
19210

3 edits
reply to guppy_fish

They do have the capacity. It is the interconnection points and last mile that are the choke points and are both controlled by the companies like Verizon, AT&T or Comcast!

If you for example use a VPN to "get around" Verizon/Cogent/Level 3 choke points, your video will play fine even in HD, but that same video is still delivered by Level 3, Cogent or LLNW! Thus again, point to Verizon made choke point!



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

Last mile? No


serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to promisic

said by promisic:

It is Verizon customers that request Netflix content. Cogent or Level 3 takes content from Netflix to Verizon network then Verizon terminates that traffic for it's own customers. See the connection???

You pay Verizon for your Internet service and for Netflix.
Netflix pays Level 3 or Cogent to deliver content to subscriber's ISP networks and subscriber's ISP network is responsible to deliver content to end user!

This is pure greed on Verizon's part, because you already paid for your Internet access and your Netflix content. Verizon wants some dollar more .... but from Cogent/Level 3 to deliver content to its own customers which is PURE greed! Like a silent extortion.

It is smart business sense on Verizon's part, even though I do not agree with their practice. Answer this question: Does Verizon need Netflix or does Netflix need Verizon? Netflix wouldn't have ever grown like it did if it did not have customers from various ISPs across the U.S.

If Netflix wants to deliver their content they need to buy enough bandwidth/ports from their transit provider to sustain the demand(after all, they are the supplier). Why would Verizon be responsible for that(i.e. what is their gain in doing so)? If Netflix was more serious about this they would pony up the fees and peer directly with Verizon, no more problems. In your posts you are painting a picture in which the traffic from Verizon>Netflix is equal to the flow from Netflix>Verizon, which is simply not true.

said by promisic:

They do have the capacity. It is the interconnection points and last mile that are the choke points and are both controlled by the companies like Verizon, AT&T or Comcast!

If you for example use a VPN to "get around" Verizon/Cogent/Level 3 choke points, your video will play fine even in HD, but that same video is still delivered by Level 3, Cogent or LLNW! Thus again, point to Verizon made choke point!

Sorry that is incorrect. Verizon's internal network and the last mile are NOT the chokepoints, it's when the content hits the edge router and logjams at the transit provider's hop along the route, which is Netflix's responsibility.

JackBauer

join:2006-08-24
Schenectady, NY

1 recommendation

reply to guppy_fish

said by guppy_fish:

Verizon isn't going to budge, neither will any of the other true tier 1 providers.

And they shouldn't. The genesis of this policy is, in my mind, POTS. Where the phone company of the person that originates a phone call, pays to the phone company of the receiving party, a "delivery" fee for that phone call.

It's been that way for decades, and isn't likely to change soon.

rlstarry
Premium
join:2002-05-22
California
reply to serge87

You've got to be kidding me. It's Netflix's problem that Verizon refuses to fix their peering issues? What world are you living in? Netflix asked Verizon to use their Open Connect last year which Verizon refused. see: »arstechnica.com/information-tech···reaming/

And who's edge router are we using to get to Cogent/Level3? Oh that's right its Verizon's router. So tell me again how that would be Netflix's responsibility to fix?


guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

3 recommendations

said by rlstarry:

You've got to be kidding me. It's Netflix's problem that Verizon refuses to fix their peering issues

There are no peering issue with Verizon, Verizon is providing all the contracted bandwidth, its the CDN's who take from Netflix and then have been dumping into the peering point exceeding there contracted allowance.

If the CDN wants to push more than it provides to its peers, then there is overage fees, which Cogent is not willing to pay, this isn't a Verizon issue, its a CDN issue

serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to rlstarry

said by rlstarry:

You've got to be kidding me. It's Netflix's problem that Verizon refuses to fix their peering issues? What world are you living in? Netflix asked Verizon to use their Open Connect last year which Verizon refused. see: »arstechnica.com/information-tech···reaming/

And who's edge router are we using to get to Cogent/Level3? Oh that's right its Verizon's router. So tell me again how that would be Netflix's responsibility to fix?

Netflix is not totally innocent here. I bet that Open Connect deal was completely free with a cherry on top too? Why would Verizon pay to maintain equipment at Netflix's OpenConnect when it already is competing with Netflix through their RedBox instant video service? Bottom line: Netflix needs to pay up or shut up

said by JackBauer:

said by guppy_fish:

Verizon isn't going to budge, neither will any of the other true tier 1 providers.

And they shouldn't. The genesis of this policy is, in my mind, POTS. Where the phone company of the person that originates a phone call, pays to the phone company of the receiving party, a "delivery" fee for that phone call.

It's been that way for decades, and isn't likely to change soon.

Agreed.

promisic

join:2013-10-13
19210

1 edit

You cannot compare POTS to Internet traffic! And rules for POTS do not apply to Internet!

It would be insane to apply POTS rules for the Internet!


SixSpeed

join:2001-12-24
USA
reply to codydog

YouTube is absolutely squashed on Verizons network. Very clear and proven, the throttling is real.

I cant wait until FiOS's competitors start advertising once youtube/netflix and verion data has been published for a few months. I guarantee they are in the lower 50% of performace.



Nick5

@verizon.net

2 recommendations

reply to JackBauer

said by JackBauer:

And they shouldn't. The genesis of this policy is, in my mind, POTS. Where the phone company of the person that originates a phone call, pays to the phone company of the receiving party, a "delivery" fee for that phone call.

It's been that way for decades, and isn't likely to change soon.

I'm wondering, do those defending Verizon see the issue with them deciding how much Netflix has to pay in order to access their customers? Even if it has been historically how the internet has worked, given that in most areas you are lucky to have 2 providers, ISPs having this much control is problematic. Consumers (at least to my knowledge) aren't even provided with the raw information about how much Verizon wants to open more nodes. (even then it would be pretty hard for the average consumer to digest)

Netflix may not be 100% in the right (even thou I think Verizon really should give more credence to the fact that this traffic isn't unsolicited, it is requested by its users who often pay more for fast Netflix... hell I can picture in a competitive ISP market ISPs paying Netflix) but I'm 1000% more worried about the monopolistic power the ability to set peering prices gives the ISPs.

norm

join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to SixSpeed

said by SixSpeed:

YouTube is absolutely squashed on Verizons network. Very clear and proven, the throttling is real.

I cant wait until FiOS's competitors start advertising once youtube/netflix and verion data has been published for a few months. I guarantee they are in the lower 50% of performace.

I am not negating what you are saying and have quite a few issues with Verizon myself, but do you think you could do a trace route to r3---sn-8xgp1vo-p5qz.googlevideo.com for me?

It resolves to a Google cache server in Verizon's Ashburn data center.

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------|
|                                      WinMTR statistics                                   |
|                       Host              -   %  | Sent | Recv | Best | Avrg | Wrst | Last |
|------------------------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
|    L100.PITBPA-VFTTP-33.verizon-gni.net -    0 |    6 |    6 |    3 |    3 |    4 |    3 |
|                          100.41.198.172 -    0 |    6 |    6 |    5 |    8 |   15 |    7 |
|  xe-6-1-4-0.RES-BB-RTR1.verizon-gni.net -    0 |    6 |    6 |   13 |   27 |   80 |   23 |
|                   No response from host -  100 |    2 |    0 |    0 |    0 |    0 |    0 |
|                0.ae5.GW2.IAD6.ALTER.NET -    0 |    6 |    6 |   18 |   19 |   21 |   18 |
|                            204.148.3.38 -    0 |    6 |    6 |   12 |   13 |   14 |   14 |
|110.73.88.63.ashburn.google-ggc.verizon.com -    0 |    6 |    6 |   17 |   18 |   21 |   20 |
|________________________________________________|______|______|______|______|______|______|
   WinMTR v0.92 GPL V2 by Appnor MSP - Fully Managed Hosting & Cloud Provider
 

McBane

join:2008-08-22
Plano, TX

2 recommendations

Just an FYI, it's pointless arguing with Verizon insiders on this forum. They'll defend Verizon tooth and nail even if it was trying to nuke the planet and kill us all if it somehow meant more profits for Verizon. They make up their own magical rules for the internet and business demand they and only they and Verizon are right.

When Verizon begins to lose subscribers for sub-par internet service and the internet has stories upon stories of how Verizon is trying to double dip and they still fail to realize the truth, you'll still never convince them.


norm

join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

I would gladly take something else over Verizon if it meant having an ISP that was a bit friendlier with its peering. My only alternative here is Comcast which is like going from lame to extra lame.

A pfSense router with an OpenVPN connection to a multi-homed VPS and using rules to determine whether to use default gateway or OpenVPN is the only thing that is keeping me sane with Verizon. You don't really know how much your internet sucks until you're working from home full time.


McBane

join:2008-08-22
Plano, TX

Just don't believe them. We all know who the 1 or 2 people are. Just don't believe their insider lies. Wouldn't surprise me if they were Verizon sales or marketing or had massive Verizon stocks at stake.

Just goes to show you, another fine example of stock holders/stupid execs ruining the most advanced consumer network on the planet for stupid, greedy, and borderline illegal tactics, and all of us as customers lose. They're running it into the ground for pure greed.

Expand your moderator at work

promisic

join:2013-10-13
19210

1 recommendation

reply to serge87

Re: Verizon's supposed response on a netflix question

They need each other. Netflix needs last mile ISP in order to deliver its content to its users, and ISP need Netflix in order to sell high speed Internet packages!

Lets be honest, if it weren't for Internet video, would you have high speed Internet connection to perform just fast downloads, check mail or plain Web surfing???

Am I right????


JackBauer

join:2006-08-24
Schenectady, NY

1 recommendation

reply to promisic

said by promisic:

It would be insane to apply POTS rules for the Internet!

Insane? Um no - you can disagree with it all you want, and I'll respect you for your opinion. But that is likely the basis for peering agreements..

said by promisic:

And rules for POTS do not apply to Internet!

I guess you are right there - peering has it's own rules, and VZ is adhering to them.

Oh and I don't own a penny of VZ stock, nor do I work for them. Heck I don't even have FIOS yet - maybe when I do sign up if I experience the same problems, I will change my opinion and whine about it constantly. However that will not change the facts that I have outlined above.


Thinkdiff
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY
kudos:11

1 recommendation

Not sure why there's such an argument over these peering agreements. It's pretty black and white:

»www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/
»publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/en···-dispute

The issue, if any, is how to determine who is responsible for the out of balance traffic. Is it Cogent because they are dumping more traffic onto Verizon's network? You could argue Verizon's customers are requesting that traffic, so Verizon should actually be paying Cogent for it. I'm not sure how the Verizon/Cogent peering agreement is written, but from Verizon's blog post it seems pretty clear.

In no scenario is Netflix responsible - they are not an ISP, they are not buying transit from Verizon. That is not the same thing as saying Netflix cannot fix the problem. They could pay Verizon directly to peer (which would incredibly cost prohibitive - and this is not how the internet it supposed to work); they could install a caching server on Verizon's network (OpenConnect) but Verizon is against this for some reason; they could pay another ISP and split their traffic across multiple ISPs when its destined for Verizon customers - this is probably the most cost effective for Netflix if Cogent and Verizon cannot come to terms.

Bottom line is that there are 3 massive companies all with opposing interests trying to spend the least money possible. Verizon has very little incentive to smooth things out with Cogent or allow Netflix's OpenConnect (especially with Redbox). Cogent probably doesn't have the money to pay Verizon what they're asking (even if they believed that's how the capacity should increase). Netflix is probably in a tough spot - wouldn't be surprised if they have incentives to keep Cogent as their one and only provider.
--
University of Southern California - Fight On!



Geot

@verizon.net

I am seeing more and more reports that this issue is beyond Netflix. Hulu, Amazon, ESPN3 are now being reported as slow, stalling in various forums.

At some point customers will start downgrading their internet service once they realize that a 100 or 50 package doesn't out perform a 15 or 25 package for video streaming.

Who needs 100 to read email or surf the net?