dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4236
share rss forum feed

McBane

join:2008-08-22
Plano, TX

4 edits
reply to Geot

Re: Verizon's supposed response on a netflix question

Who needs Verizon FiOS when they can't even play the peer game properly? On almost every other backbone peering agreement the one who is requesting the traffic is who usually ends up paying for it or gets the break for it. Not with Verizon though. Why should Cogent PAY Verizon who is the one REQUESTING COGENT BANDWIDTH? We have all the fiber last mile bandwidth and a 3rd rate backbone that can't even support it because it's trying to double dip all of it's peering agreements now because they don't want to pony up on their peering agreements to actually support their backbone. Verizon has actually gone beyond asking for FREE bandwidth, they're actually asking Cogent to PAY THEM for COGENTS SERVICE and product.

Can you imagine going to Wal-Mart and demanding they pay you for their products?

That's what Verizon does though, it's become their SOP. Just ask Frontier/FairPoint Communications. They're starting to figure out that the other Tier 1s are not going to play their game though, and FiOS is suffering because of it.

It wasn't always like this.


Nick5

@verizon.net
reply to JackBauer
Taking a break from the blame game, does peering just look at downstream traffic? Does that mean that backup services don't have this issue? If so, could Cogent just pair up with a backup service or 2 or 3 and then come back to Verizon saying there is your stupid simultaneous traffic?

I suppose getting the numbers to add up might be easier said than done, but this doesn't sound all that implausible. Backup by Netflix anyone?


Thinkdiff
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY
kudos:11
reply to Geot
said by Geot :

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.

The service is irrelevant unless one of them peers directly with Verizon or uses caching. If Hulu and Netflix both use Cogent, then it makes sense that both will be constrained at the same time.
--
University of Southern California - Fight On!


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

1 recommendation

reply to McBane
said by McBane:

On almost every other backbone peering agreement the one who is requesting the traffic is who usually ends up paying for it or gets the break for it.

Do you have any proof for this? I'm genuinely asking because the argument makes some sense to me, but as far as I can tell, it was never done as you suggest. It's always the sender on the hook for paying. In this case, the sender is Cogent.

If you look back to the Level3 conflicts a few years ago, they were complaining that Cogent was sending too much data onto the L3 network without paying, which sounds a whole like what Verizon is claiming, too:
»www.prnewswire.com/news-releases···572.html
--
University of Southern California - Fight On!

McBane

join:2008-08-22
Plano, TX

4 edits
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering

quote:
Sell transit (or Internet access) service to that network (making them a 'customer')
Cogent is the one selling Verizon transit to Netflix here. The one with the content to sell has the higher bargaining chip. Customers can just go to another provider if their service is sub-par and they can't get the content they want in a reliable manner. Netflix knows this. Cogent knows this. Google/Youtube knows this. ESPN knows this. Verizon is demanding that Netflix and all the above need to pay for transit to Verizon customers. (Which goes against established peering principles). Verizon is essentially holding us hostage for more favorable peering agreements and demanding money where it isn't due. They're hoping their superior network will keep us from leaving. Same thing you see with cable channels and companies but Verizon is taking it to the extreme. If you don't get the channels you want on cable, you'll go to DISH or wherever else you have access to the channels you want.


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

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by McBane:

Verizon is demanding that Netflix and all the above need to pay for transit to Verizon customers.

AFAIK, Verizon never said this, yet it keeps coming up in this thread. They are asking Cogent to pay for asymmetrical data usage, just as L3 did in the press release I linked to.

Cogent is charging Netflix for transit onto "the Internet". It's Cogent's responsibility to transport the data to other networks. I still can't find a case where a tier 1 or tier 2 provider with settlement-free peering was paying the sending network for excess incoming data.

Edit: Hrm.. I guess I could understand the argument if Cogent is considered a transit ISP between Verizon and Netflix - in that case, it would make sense that both Verizon and Netflix pay Cogent. However, I don't think this is the case as Cogent tries to act like a Tier 1 provider.
--
University of Southern California - Fight On!

McBane

join:2008-08-22
Plano, TX
Same reason cable channels don't pay cable companies for access to their networks. It works vice versa. It's the same case here and why should they? If Verizon Netflix customers can't get what they want they can either pound sand or get a new ISP if Verizon refuses to fix it.


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

1 recommendation

The analogies you keep bringing up really don't reinforce your argument because they are way too simplistic or just completely different.

If you want the Internet to work like Cable TV where we pay to access a certain set of 1-way content, then your analogy makes sense. But that's not how the Internet works and that's why peering agreements aren't written that way. Same thing with the Walmart analogy earlier - irrelevant to this discussion.

If you really want to go with your Cable TV argument, the closest thing would be two providers offering the same exact channels, but on service A you can only watch channel 10 from 4AM to 5PM. I agree from the end user perspective, it doesn't matter who is creating that problem - but it doesn't necessarily mean its a "service A" problem.
--
University of Southern California - Fight On!

serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Nick5
said by Nick5 :

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.

All the more reason for Netflix to put pressure on Verizon to peer with them via OpenConnect, even if they have to cover all maintenance costs of OC.

As for peering costs, Verizon doesn't set the industry prices for nodes and per-megabit data transfer. Here is a good read on peering vs transit even though it's dated a few years.

promisic

join:2013-10-13
19210
Verizon does not need Netflix. Verizon has RedBox. That is why it won't peer with them directly with OpenConnect!

But "damn" Verizon users are requesting Netflix content and that is a "problem" for them!

POTS rules and the Internet? Really? Do you really want to pay long distance packets that you are sending as part of your upload???


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
Its not really a problem for them. I dont understand the networking scenario here too all too well, but as a spectator, I would imagine that an interactive RedBox screen will soon be implemented directly into Verizons cable boxes. So if there is any kind of dispute as to which company PAYS to clear up the Netflix debacle, it surely wont be Verizon. This will be interesting to see how this plays out. Few MSO's are excited about making deals with companies that erode their own TV revenues.

serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to codydog
said by guppy_fish:

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

Quoting this again because apparently bringing this fact up makes you a Verizon shill somehow

Let's say:

1) Netflix and Big Bad Verizon agree to a certain amount of bandwidth(Gbps or Tbps) and price($/Mbps) with a transit provider to allow Netflix to send data to Verizon customers. Let's say 1Tbps.

2) Netflix sends traffic to Verizon customers over this 1Tbps theoretical link.

3) Over time, the link becomes saturated to at or near 100% usage. Very little or no data is being sent back from Verizon customers to Netflix, all the traffic is coming into Verizon's network and is very asymmetrical.

In the scenario above, who should pay to increase the bandwidth allotment from 1Tbps to something higher until congestion is reduced and why?

codydog

join:2001-11-29
Newport, RI
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
Not really a valid analogy.

Consider if I buy a car and GM has a price dispute with the window manufacturer so I get handed keys to a car without windows and GM says "when you bought the car, our expenses were X now its Y, so you only get what we budgeted for. Sorry about the windows."

Would you accept that or expect GM to make good on their commitments? Or the window corp? Not sure why I need to worry about either one as I paid for a functioning car, not to mediate between people I dont know.

Unless this is the new normal where corps can market whatever they want and then deliver whatever they want?

serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by codydog:

Not really a valid analogy.

Not just an analogy, this is what is actually happening right now(just the numbers change).

said by codydog:

GM says "when you bought the car, our expenses were X now its Y, so you only get what we budgeted for. Sorry about the windows."

Of all things, this is not a valid analogy. A bandwidth allotment is not a tangible product like a car window is.

What the window manufacturer offers to GM is much different in value to what Netflix offers to Verizon as a business entity. Netflix is not a necessity to Verizon's corporate well-being(check Verizon's last quarterly report). Verizon and Netflix are under contract to exchange a certain amount of bandwidth between each other via third-parties. Verizon is fulfilling its end of the agreement by providing access to its own network and paying for the transit link. If Netflix wants to reach more Verizon customers or reveal a new super-duper-double-HD quality stream it needs to pay up to do so.

It almost sounds like you're saying that Verizon should just foot the whole bill for Netflix out of a sense of generosity with nothing to gain in return except Verizon customers' gratitude, increased Netflix popularity(in competition to RedBox), and increased network load on their FIOS network?


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
Pretty sure the key is the success that Redbox has. One of Verizons biggest competitors Cablevision is ranking #2 on the chart. So, they are gambling here, and IMO are taking far too long in implementing Redbox into their devices, both cellphones and STB's.

codydog

join:2001-11-29
Newport, RI
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to serge87
I'm saying if VZ is selling me a service or product, as Netflix is, they are obligated to deliver the product regardless of their costs. The argument that Netflix sends more traffic to VZ is a red herring, as who cares? VZ strategic planning is terrible if they didnt plan for that and that's their problem, not mine. But, if VZ says we only will send you X amount of any sub-contracted service at Y price, that's different. When I buy a car if I don't want standard tires, I pay extra. VZ should do the same.

Heres another example - GM cars are built and maintained differently depending where you live. If I tell GM, I am in Florida, the model is different than in Alaska as GM has experience in both markets and knows what required. GM or VZ saying its a mystery why their product doesn't work the same everywhere, (or under heavy usage, think Netflix/VZ after 6pm) is simply laughable.

serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
said by codydog:

I'm saying if VZ is selling me a service or product, as Netflix is, they are obligated to deliver the product regardless of their costs.

You just answered your own question. Verizon IS holding up its end of the bargain, Netflix is NOT.

said by codydog:

The argument that Netflix sends more traffic to VZ is a red herring, as who cares?

I think Verizon cares. If you were my neighbor and came to me with a proposal to build a side street from our neighborhood to a main road, with the stipulation that we both must pay half of the costs, yet 95% of the time only you would be utilizing it, would it be fair for each of us to pay half?

codydog

join:2001-11-29
Newport, RI
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
Its a bit different with a million customers, but, OK, in your example, would you pay 5%? Roads are different as they're not usually scalable, but VZ hardware is very scalable. And if you 'knew' your use would be 50%, not 5%, my analysis should reveal that and if I didn't, its my problem not yours.

So, yes, my agreement on your example would be, pay 5% and use it up to 5% (however that's measured) and then pay me as you go over 5%.

serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 edit
said by codydog:

Its a bit different with a million customers, but, OK, in your example, would you pay 5%? Roads are different as they're not usually scalable, but VZ hardware is very scalable. And if you 'knew' your use would be 50%, not 5%, my analysis should reveal that and if I didn't, its my problem not yours.

So, yes, my agreement on your example would be, pay 5% and use it up to 5% (however that's measured) and then pay me as you go over 5%.

If I extrapolate that example to Verizon and Netflix, Verizon would be the neighbor who rarely uses that new side road yet is paying for his neighbor's constant usage of it. Netflix unloads Terabits-per-second of video data traffic unto Verizon while Verizon's customers don't send anything back to Netflix. It's a very unbalanced traffic exchange yet Netflix expects Verizon to subsidize its expansion. I'm sure Verizon wants its customers to have access to Netflix but they are drawing a line where Netflix needs to pick up the load if they want to keep getting new subscribers.

codydog

join:2001-11-29
Newport, RI
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 recommendations

If your view is valid that's fine, just tell me what my price is and if I like it, I pay, if not move on. The issue I have is the silence when I have a problem. If I want snow tires in winter, GM says pay X and voila, drive in snow, don't pay and stay home.

But don't tell me and expect me to believe that its all a mystery that no one understands and be silent. When you travel you can stay at Motel 6 or the Plaza, both are hotels but everyone knows why the price is so different. Some pay, some don't, no mystery.

Agreed?

serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

said by codydog:

If your view is valid that's fine, just tell me what my price is and if I like it, I pay, if not move on. The issue I have is the silence when I have a problem. If I want snow tires in winter, GM says pay X and voila, drive in snow, don't pay and stay home.

But don't tell me and expect me to believe that its all a mystery that no one understands and be silent. When you travel you can stay at Motel 6 or the Plaza, both are hotels but everyone knows why the price is so different. Some pay, some don't, no mystery.

Agreed?

I will agree with that point. This same problem happened with Youtube a year ago with Verizon. You couldn't even stream 360p some evenings. Google and Verizon eventually reached a solution but I bet it happened after some major b!tch1ng from Verizon customers to Verizon. Some people on Verizon still say Youtube runs like crap but it has tremendously improved for me and I haven't seen as many 'slow Youtube' threads on this forum, compared to in the past when it was a new thread every other day.

norm

join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by serge87:

I will agree with that point. This same problem happened with Youtube a year ago with Verizon. You couldn't even stream 360p some evenings. Google and Verizon eventually reached a solution but I bet it happened after some major b!tch1ng from Verizon customers to Verizon. Some people on Verizon still say Youtube runs like crap but it has tremendously improved for me and I haven't seen as many 'slow Youtube' threads on this forum, compared to in the past when it was a new thread every other day.

I have asked a number of people that say it runs like crap to provide trace routes to streaming services. Verizon has placed Google cache servers in at least some of their data centers. I'm really curious if they're hitting those, Google via direct peering with Verizon, Google via another provider (typically XO), or if their setup just plain sucks.

serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by norm:

I have asked a number of people that say it runs like crap to provide trace routes to streaming services. Verizon has placed Google cache servers in at least some of their data centers. I'm really curious if they're hitting those, Google via direct peering with Verizon, Google via another provider (typically XO), or if their setup just plain sucks.

I'd also be interested to know what cities or region of the U.S. those posters are from and if it's just a scattered/localized problem. The only problem with reviews of pretty much anything is that when everything is going right, no one bats an eye and only when the crap hits the fan do we get a 40-page 'Youtube is slow' thread

promisic

join:2013-10-13
19210
reply to codydog
Ars Technica article on this topic

»arstechnica.com/information-tech···-months/

serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by promisic:

Ars Technica article on this topic

»arstechnica.com/information-tech···-months/

"Netflix didn't offer any analysis of why performance would have dropped in the past few months."

I found that line funny since Netflix subscriptions have been selling like hotcakes with no end in sight(2.33 million new subscribers in the last quarter alone!), with revenue coming in hand over fist yet it's a mystery to Netflix why network performance is degrading

promisic

join:2013-10-13
19210
Hey, this topic is sensitive and all conversation on it will be done in private.

Look at Comcast explanation: "we are aware of these threads and the concerns expressed here. We are actively engaged. It is sensitive and we can't really say more than that right now.".

codydog

join:2001-11-29
Newport, RI
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
Just thinking about it, the Netflix/(insert isp name here) relationship is a bit symbiotic. Without Netflix type services nobody really needs to pay for bigger and faster services for email and browsing. So, in some way it seems to me, isp would be happy to upgrade to continue to charge higher prices for faster service. Just a thought

serge87

join:2009-11-29
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to codydog
In response to Netflix's rankings, Verizon gave Ars this statement:
said by Verizon :

How the Internet works can be complicated, and consumers should be aware of the fact that the integrity of their home Internet connection is only a portion of the streaming video quality equation. If their broadband connection is functioning correctly, the source of their frustration and the content they wish to see may be one in the same.

Seems like the last line is Verizon acknowledging that the ball is in Netflix' court.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

1 recommendation

reply to promisic
said by promisic:

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!
...
Am I right????

No. Netflix needs ISPs to provide the enormous bandwidths necessary to support their huge numbers of streaming users. The ISPs don't need shit -- they are, for the most part, a monopoly... if you don't like Verizon, what other broadband choice do you have? The uber-speed packages sell themselves -- 100, 300, and 500 mbps plans don't make any difference to a 5mbps netflix stream; if you want 5+ streams, then it would matter, but then that's a problem of your own making.
Expand your moderator at work