dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed


jlivingood
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to kaila

Re: VPN | no-VPN = same broadband provider

said by kaila:

It works because the provider has no clue it's coming from Netflix. Netflix sends the traffic to the end users VPN provider, and they forward it in an encrypted state to the end user.

Actually it is kind of the opposite. A destination CDN is deciding based on your source address what route to use to send packets back to you.

Here's what ArsTechnica said on that subject at »arstechnica.com/information-tech···ideo/2/:

Maximize the pain

There's actually a "peering playbook" written by consulting firm DrPeering International, with strategies for forcing ISPs into free peering agreements. One tactic is to manipulate traffic in such a way that peering becomes the most cost-effective option for your opponents at the negotiating table.

"They recommend strategically choosing paths to maximize the costs to the person you're trying to force to peer with you," Bowman said.

How would it work?

"Hypothetically, let's say I know the ISP I'm going to pick on this month, and I know there's three different ways into their network. One of them they pay a dollar for, one they pay $10 for, and one they pay $100 for. So I just switch all my traffic to the $100 one until they cry and then I say, 'ok, I'll come to your door and let's just do it for free.'"

Similarly, an ISP may have "three links that are each 10 gigabit. They're expecting that I'll send my traffic equally on all three links. What I'll do instead is on Monday I'll send on link 1 and on Tuesday I'll send on link 2, and then congestion will appear and subscribers will have a bad experience." The ISP would be forced to upgrade each of the links, even though only one of them would be used to capacity on any given day.

From the video streaming provider's point of view, "I'm forcing them to spend a lot of money, they're stranding their capital, eventually they'll come to my door to negotiate. That's what the peering playbook talks about."

"Without a doubt there is some streaming company doing that today. I just couldn't say that it's anyone specific because I don't have information to show it," he said.

Netflix wants to peer directly with ISPs and put its video caches inside the ISP data centers. The offer is "free," but ISPs would have to host equipment dedicated to Netflix, letting Netflix save money on transit fees.

Some ISPs believe this is a win-win on both sides and for consumers, but ISPs who think otherwise have a valid point, Bowman said. "If someone comes to you and says, 'hey I'm big, I want differentiated service, I'd like to move close to your consumers, so can you please make 40 inches of space and 5,000 watts of power available at 100 sites, thanks very much,' you would normally say, 'I'm in the business of selling that%u2014here's my price list."

--
JL
Comcast

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
Except ISPs have the option to simply peer with Netflix, you're not forced to provide collocation to them. I get the argument for not wanting to provide power and space for free, however that's not the sole solution. Peering is completely doable.

What cost is that to ISPs? Additional 10G ports?

Ah but that's right, there's the whole settlement-free dispute. It's a lot more profitable to have the traffic come in through carriers that pay you for the capacity. It's a business decision after all.


your name

@comcast.net

2 recommendations

reply to jlivingood
That write up shows clearly that trying to lay all the blame on the ISPs is a mistake. These streaming content companies are also sharks that screw the customer to their own ends to reduce costs and increase profits.


weaseled386

join:2008-04-13
Port Orange, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Bright House
·AT&T U-Verse

1 recommendation

reply to BlueC
said by BlueC:

What cost is that to ISPs? Additional 10G ports?

I can't tell if you're serious. Do you think 10G ports are FREE? Why should ISP's foot the bill to help Netflix succeed?


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
said by weaseled386:

I can't tell if you're serious. Do you think 10G ports are FREE? Why should ISP's foot the bill to help Netflix succeed?

So, if I was a large business and I wanted to pay for a 10GigE link to my NOC, it's too damn bad?

The same could be said when most providers were running FastE ports. Why should the ISP's foot the bill for GigE links?


RadioDoc
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL
kudos:2
reply to weaseled386
said by weaseled386:

Why should ISP's foot the bill to help Netflix succeed?

Because content providers like Netflix create demand for pricey bandwidth packages at the consumer end, which are ridiculously marked up at retail.


connections

@pppoe.ca
reply to weaseled386
said by weaseled386:

said by BlueC:

What cost is that to ISPs? Additional 10G ports?

I can't tell if you're serious. Do you think 10G ports are FREE? Why should ISP's foot the bill to help Netflix succeed?

Is this supposed to be a joke? Those paying customers that have payed to reach the Internet? not some arbitrary selection of what the ISP deems is Ok. Netflix doesn't just shove random traffic down random networks. Customers of the ISPs have requested this traffic and are paying to receive this traffic. It's amazing that people seem to have such a hard time grasping such a simple concept.


notsimple

@ioflood.com

Is this supposed to be a joke? Those paying customers that have payed to reach the Internet? not some arbitrary selection of what the ISP deems is Ok. Netflix doesn't just shove random traffic down random networks. Customers of the ISPs have requested this traffic and are paying to receive this traffic. It's amazing that people seem to have such a hard time grasping such a simple concept.

This "requester argument" has been used successfully as "red herring" (by Netflix lobbyists) and repeated by those that don't really understand how the Internet works.

Netflix has always paid for transit to deliver their service. Their customers pay them a monthly fee to deliver it with the quality they expect. Netflix saying that people are already paying for Netflix transit in their ISP fee is quite false.

It is not the ISPs responsiblity to pay or subsidize the Netflix's transit costs because "their customers are requesting this traffic"

Netflix cheaping out on transit is what is impacting their customers.


connections

@pppoe.ca

-1 recommendation

said by notsimple :

This "requester argument" has been used successfully as "red herring" (by Netflix lobbyists) and repeated by those that don't really understand how the Internet works.

Netflix has always paid for transit to deliver their service. Their customers pay them a monthly fee to deliver it with the quality they expect. Netflix saying that people are already paying for Netflix transit in their ISP fee is quite false.

It is not the ISPs responsiblity to pay or subsidize the Netflix's transit costs because "their customers are requesting this traffic"

Netflix cheaping out on transit is what is impacting their customers.

What?! This post doesn't even make any sense. It makes it pretty clear YOU do not know what you're talking about. No one has said anything about Verizon customers paying for Netflix transit. Verizon customers are paying to reach Netflix. This is a pretty simple concept that OBVIOUSLY is too difficult to understand. No, Verizon and the other ISPs wanting to double dip is what is impacting their customers.


notsimple

@ioflood.com

1 recommendation

What?! This post doesn't even make any sense. It makes it pretty clear YOU do not know what you're talking about. No one has said anything about Verizon customers paying for Netflix transit. Verizon customers are paying to reach Netflix. This is a pretty simple concept that OBVIOUSLY is too difficult to understand. No, Verizon and the other ISPs wanting to double dip is what is impacting their customers.

Netflix requirements for peering (aka joining OpenConnect) is a form of them expecting not to have to pay for transit to deliver their service. This is not "double dipping". Netflix can pick any transit provider they want similar to anyone else. Just make good choices for your customers.

The problem is they are picking ones which cannot deliver with quality and then blaming the ISPs for the problems. This is "bad transit" decision is meant as a forcing function around Netflix's demand for peering (aka joining OpenConnect)


Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
reply to notsimple
said by notsimple :

This "requester argument" has been used successfully as "red herring" (by Netflix lobbyists) and repeated by those that don't really understand how the Internet works.

Obviously, you don't know how the internet works, either.
said by notsimple :

Netflix has always paid for transit to deliver their service. Their customers pay them a monthly fee to deliver it with the quality they expect. Netflix saying that people are already paying for Netflix transit in their ISP fee is quite false.

It is not the ISPs responsiblity to pay or subsidize the Netflix's transit costs because "their customers are requesting this traffic"

Netflix cheaping out on transit is what is impacting their customers.

Why are you blaming Netflix? How about blaming Microsoft as well for their system updates and Xbox Live service. What about Sony for the PlayStation Network? How about blaming every streaming provider on the Internet?

This is specialized discrimination that Net Neutrality was to defend against. Now that it's gone, the ISP's and transit providers can do whatever they want. Unfortunately, they have Netflix in their crosshairs for some idiotic reason.

So, a company buys an OC48 connection to the internet with unlimited traffic. How the heck is that "cheaping out on transit"? If I buy an OC48, it'd better be able to handle 2488.32Mbit/sec 24x7x365. If not, why am I paying for it again?
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,2T+2T+1.5T HDDs,Win7]
MyLaptop[Asus G53SX,32GB RAM,2x1TB HDD,Win7]
WifeWS[C2D@2.4G,4G RAM,250G HDD,Win7]
Router[PE1750,4G RAM,3x36G HDD,2xIntel Pro/1000+GT Quad Port,Gentoo]


RadioDoc
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL
kudos:2
said by Simba7:

This is specialized discrimination that Net Neutrality was to defend against. Now that it's gone, the ISP's and transit providers can do whatever they want.

That argument might have some validity if net neutrality was ever actually "here". Or more practically, the assumption that every ISP has rushed to choke streaming providers after the court ruled in Verizon's favor knowing full well that they would have such action shoved right back down their throats in short order is ludicrous.


notsimple

@ioflood.com
reply to Simba7

Why are you blaming Netflix? How about blaming Microsoft as well for their system updates and Xbox Live service. What about Sony for the PlayStation Network? How about blaming every streaming provider on the Internet?

Because they are not degrading their traffic to get special favors. This is why their service (and many others) work well, but Netflix is, for the most part, singularly problematic for users. This is Netflix making bad choices and blaming ISPs.