dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4147
share rss forum feed


Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
reply to cramer

Re: Verizon's supposed response on a netflix question

said by cramer:

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;

But there's the rub though. Why would power users ISPs come to depend on for big packages then spend big bucks on a broken pipe? If I can only get 5 mbps to the services I want, why would I shell out for the 100 mbps line? ISPs need content providers to make faster broadband access look like hot shit, and content providers need ISPs to deliver the traffic without gumming it up.

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

For starters, people are stupid; they'll buy a 300meg connection to "have faster access" to a 10meg (or 100meg) connected game server on the other side of the planet.

ISPs want to be paid for absolutely everything... their customers (who ask for content) as well as the content providers (from whom their customers are asking for content.) Their support lines would be 1-900 if they could get away with it. If there were real competition, this sort of shit would never happen. Back in the days of dialup (when there was competition, and almost zero barriers to entry -- anyone with a desire could setup an ISP), ISPs worked hard to attract and keep customers. Today, you have almost zero choice of ISP, and it's all but impossible to create your own.



notaper

@anonymouse.org
reply to Nick5

said by Nick5 :

but I'm 1000% more worried about the monopolistic power the ability to set peering prices gives the ISPs.

Given there are so many transit providers out their and transit pricing has continually gone down year over year, your concerns are unwarrented. Unless VZ congests all their peers (which I doubt they ever would) transit pricing is not a problem

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

1 recommendation

There actually aren't that many. Look at some of the "BGP Art" created from inspection of global routing and you'll notice, on average, traffic across the internet will pass through one of a dozen tier 1 networks at some point. (while you can buy "transit" from many players, they are in-turn buying transit from someone bigger.)



notaper

@anonymouse.org

1 recommendation

said by cramer:

There actually aren't that many. Look at some of the "BGP Art" created from inspection of global routing and you'll notice, on average, traffic across the internet will pass through one of a dozen tier 1 networks at some point. (while you can buy "transit" from many players, they are in-turn buying transit from someone bigger.)

I think a dozen is pretty competitive field and should be enough (check the decade of decline on transit). It's when you pick the bottom feeder cheapest that causes performance issues.

Explain to me how all other CDNs appear to be able to deliver quality Internet video. Why can't Netflix?

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

said by notaper :

Explain to me how all other CDNs appear to be able to deliver quality Internet video.

That's just it... they don't. The specific streams you're watching, and when you watch them, may not hit any issues. I, personally, have not seen any of the issues many others have been complaining of with youtube, netflix, etc. over any of the various networks I frequent. (DTV VoD streams in at a near constant 8Mbps all day long, and yes, I kept things queued for ~36hrs once -- granted, that might not have been what they meant by, "see how it works now.")

Netflix is an odd fish. Many providers have a vested interest in seeing it suck... TWC, Comcast, Verizon, Uverse... i.e. those who also sell video services. And then there's those with their own (competing) CDN.

pittpete1

join:2009-06-12
reply to codydog

Was wondering if people on Verizon Wireless have Netflix issues.



notaper

@anonymouse.org

1 recommendation

reply to cramer

Said by cramer See Profile:
Netflix is an odd fish. Many providers have a vested interest in seeing it suck... TWC, Comcast, Verizon, Uverse... i.e. those who also sell video services. And then there's those with their own (competing) CDN.

And there it is!!! The party line... "because they compete, they must be throttling"

Since Netflix controls much of the congestion and performance via CDN balancing across a highly competitive transit market, I call BS on that. Also the fact this was working well with Akamai and others, I think this is more of a really well done frame job.

Congrats to Netflix!! Internet meme's do work! Pass it on...

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

I didn't say "they must be throttling". And they aren't (as far as anyone has proven) throttling anything. Not doing anything to provide (or actively working against) sufficient bandwidth does fit with what I said: they have a vested interest in seeing it suck. Netflix switched away from akamai due to cost (apparently.)

(It has been proven certain operators were actively taking steps to push traffic to known congested links -- following the dns and succession of http redirects.)



notaper

@anonymouse.org

1 recommendation

So Netflix moves away from a quality delivery with Akamai (for cost as you say) and chooses the lowest cost transit supplier (you get what you pay for). It probably wouldn't be a stretch to say that their limited transit suppliers are not capable of handling the large influx of traffic with Netflix.

Then Netflix claims that all ISPs must upgrade their peering links so they can maintain the lowest cost transit price point with that supplier this month. Even though these upgrades may be far out of peering agreement guidelines, EVERYONE must upgrade because it is Netflix traffic (which is special)

In a few months another low cost transit supplier negotiates all of Netflix's traffic and then all ISPs must upgrade with that supplier (peering policies are no longer valid)

This is not how the Internet works, nor how Akamai and most big Internet content companies work. They don't swing terabits around, hurting consumers and breaking ISP relationships in the process.

Netflix has the right to get good pricing and use available transit capacity via peering agreements (there is plenty if used properly), but they do not get to congest links, cause problems, create peering issues between providers, cause customer problems AND blame others for their actions.

.....or do they if the entity they are causing harm is a competitor?


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

CDNs rarely operate under what you call "peering guidelines" -- i.e. the rules used between ISPs -- as they are sources of enormous amounts of traffic while receiving nearly zero. (they aren't a "peer", they are a "customer".) HOWEVER, Netflix (and their CDNs) want the same level of connection sharing a peer would receive; that is, I pay for my side - you pay for yours. For multiple 100Gbps links. They'd also like to place local caching appliances within ISP networks, for free. (read: no cost co-lo rack space, power, and cooling. and from time to time, they'll need ISP staff to be remote hands.) The ISPs, however, want to be paid for everything -- colo, that's $$$$ per U per month, high speed access to our customersnetwork, that'll be $$$$$$ setup plus $$$$$ per megabyte -- despite having numerous pissed off customers due to many congested points through their network(s). (also read: they don't give a shit about the customer, because they know the customer has nowhere to go.) [netflix may be the cause, but they aren't the only traffic.]

I've installed local Akamai cache servers. (3 2U servers) The difference is, it was over a decade ago, and *we* asked for them -- Akamai didn't approach us. It made an immediate, measurable difference on our level of internet traffic. We spent thousands in engineering (people) and $10k in hardware to setup private peering with MCNC (NCREN) for a single customer (tv station, so they'd have stable access to weather data.) In today's world, nobody would spend tax payer (MCNC) and company money for this.


Shady Bimmer
Premium
join:2001-12-03
Northport, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

The comparison to Akamai is interesting. Akamai prides themselves on availability and actually uses that as part of their marketing. They do what they need to do to ensure their stated SLAs, and their customers pay for those SLAs.

As has already been noted in this and many other threads, when a content provider (such as Netflix) chooses the lowest-cost delivery provider (such as Cogent) they get what they pay for.

I've raised an example twice previously for a baseline study but never received any responses. Pick a single ISP such as Verizon. Pick two customers of that ISP: One providing a service and the other consuming that service. The former purchases a symmertric 50mb link and the latter purchases a 150/75 link. The latter complains that the service provided by the former is not meeting his expectations in bandwidth. Who should pay for the upgrade in the former's connectivity?

(This isn't as an argument for cramer See Profile but for the thread as a whole)


kevnich24

join:2006-04-19
Mulberry, FL

1 recommendation

reply to notaper

There's actually alot at play with this. Netflix pays alot for it's bandwidth, but it doesn't want to anymore. So they are trying to get all these ISP's to colocate cache servers for it's services on their pipes, which helps reduce Netflix's monthly bandwidth costs and helping these provider's buy less bandwidth. If you notice, the providers that are refusing to do this are all the Tier 1 provider's, many of which also have their own on demand streaming service as well that they want to make money off of.

Tier 1's, by virtue of being a Tier 1, has to peer with every other Tier 1 provider as well but the peering agreement's maintain that the traffic must be balanced. So they allow the links to get congested because they want Netflix to pay them to host their cache server's because their not buying bandwidth like Tier 2, 3 and 4 providers do. It's in their best business interests to resist. Tier 2 and below's best interest is to go with the cache servers as it saves both sides money.

In all honesty, the peering agreements of late are a bit old for the new generation of internet which is mostly video streaming. Something will eventually get done, it just depends which side blinks first. As another poster said, this is the way it's been done since the beginning of the internet but things do have to change with the times.


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

2 edits

1 recommendation

reply to Shady Bimmer

That goes back to a previous comment of mine... where people buy the 300-500m package to talk to a 10 or 100m connected server many hops away on the other side of the planet. In this case, the speed of the server is certainly less than the client, but there's also a lot going on between them that will greatly limit throughput. In the above 50 vs 150 case, there may be similar things going on further limiting throughput -- even if they are the only consumer of that service.

In the netflix (or youtube) case, it's slightly more complex as the service entity isn't a direct customer of the consumer's ISP. Netflix is a customer of Cogent, who peers with Verizon, who's customers want content from Netflix. Who's paying for the upgrade(s) here? Cogent doesn't want to buy transit from Verizon, and Verizon isn't going to give Cogent any more peering. Logically, Cogent should be the one to pay, but they're going to cling to the notion of "peer" -- thus not paying for Verizon's necessary hardware/upgrades to support them. (the traffic is now so hugely one sided, they aren't remotely a peer anymore.)

But there are other economic factors at play... again, back to the "vested interest". Verizon would love to make Netflix a customer -- they can have as much bandwidth as they can buy. Verizon has ample motive to make that bandwidth very expensive: out of their own lust and greed, and to make the service less desirable to their customers thus promoting their own video services.

[Edit: Not that VZB (the people formerly called UUNet) is remotely a cheap ISP; nor have they ever been.]


Shady Bimmer
Premium
join:2001-12-03
Northport, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Exactly.

I simplified the case as far as possible to try to spur further intelligent discussion in my previous attempts and never got a response.

You've summarized it well but there are many that continue to throw out nonsense arguments with no basis



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

Well, Im glad some of you understand the inner workings here. Im still lost regarding this issue, I think I need diagrams


serge87

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

said by ITALIAN926:

Well, Im glad some of you understand the inner workings here. Im still lost regarding this issue, I think I need diagrams

My attempt: »Re: Ridiculous 288 SD

qwert9999

join:2001-06-27
Port Richey, FL
reply to codydog

i can't watch netflix for the last 2 days from 3pm-2am. it starts to buffer and then says i was disconnected.



matcarl
Premium
join:2007-03-09
Franklin Square, NY

1 recommendation

It does look like Verizon is in talks with Netflix like Comcast was:

»multichannel.com/distribution/ve···;/148490



nycdave
Premium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY
kudos:16
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

Great article that attempts to explain some of the media hype and mis-information about paid interconnect agreements and net neutrality for the Comcast/NetFlix agreement. This will also apply to Verizon:

»finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/···st-deal/


serge87

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

Here's a good one: http://www.multichannel.com/distribution/public-knowledge-concerned-about-comcastnetflix-peering-deal/148474

"Because the large residential ISPs themselves are the ones keeping the terms of their deals secret, it raises the question of whether they have something to hide," said Bergmayer.

"We call on the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Justice, and interested members of Congress to ensure that the broadband market continues to meet the needs of its users, and allows companies like Netflix (and the next Netflix) to offer the services that users have demonstrated they want."


How do they not understand basic rules of free-market capitalism, gotta pay to play(or just strong-arm and shame ISPs into subsidizing your operations)

nowayout

join:2009-06-22
Allentown, PA
reply to codydog

Netflix is talking to AT&T too. Seems like the dominos are falling.

»news.yahoo.com/t-speaking-netfli···tor.html


navyblue99ss

join:2006-11-05
Derwood, MD
reply to codydog

Netflix, youtube, photobucket are all horrible on fios for me. I fixed them all by getting a super fast VPN. Verizon is absolutely horrible. The VPN proves without a shadow of a doubt that verizon is screwing with its customers. I can turn it on and all problems vanish instantly. Turn it back off and like magic they are back at a crawl. Now you guys tell me verizon is not doing some funky traffic shaping or throttling.


norm

join:2012-10-18
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1

Both Netflix and Photobucket are using Level 3 to get to a lot of Verizon customers. Peering points between Verizon and Level 3 are often times saturated anymore.


cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to navyblue99ss

You are correct, they are not employing any "funky traffic shaping or throttling". The natural path of traffic is crossing congested links. Your use of a VPN, because it's not crossing the same congested links, is [i]routing around the issue.


navyblue99ss

join:2006-11-05
Derwood, MD

If that is the case then it stil fix's the issue no matter how you slice it. I have it set to start up with my computer now. I got tired of turning it on and off every time I went to any media heavy site. Now it just connects when I boot up and I get blazing speeds on every site. Well worth the $30 for the yearly subscription. Also no worried about getting a letter from downloading or seeding certain torrents.