dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
reply to YukonHawk

Re: [Business] Looks like Netflix is paying up to improve signals Source WSJ.

yep, when King Kong and Godzilla battle it out, it's the little guys (us) who get squashed. passing the "savings" along to us.


elkido122

join:2011-02-23
Folsom, CA
So if we want to watch nexflix now Comcast will charge us or no??


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

said by elkido122:

So if we want to watch nexflix now Comcast will charge us or no??

No, it means comcast won't need to raise rates to pay for Netflix customer traffic.
Netflix may or may not need to charge more, but it will only be Netflix customers paying for THEIR Netflix traffic, as it should be.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to train_wreck
said by train_wreck:

yep, when King Kong and Godzilla battle it out, it's the little guys (us) who get squashed. passing the "savings" along to us.

End users were always going to pay the cost, it was really about at which end you paid, which effected which end users paid.


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by tshirt:

End users were always going to pay the cost, it was really about at which end you paid, which effected which end users paid.

sure. but say Netflix raises rates. How do you think that makes netflix users on Charter/Bright House/any other ISP feel? They're having to pay for this Comcast deal when they have nothing to do with Comcast. Unless Netflix would be intelligent enough to only raise rates for Comcast customers singularly.

Keep in mind we're speaking in hypotheticals, no rate hikes have been announced just yet

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
said by train_wreck:

Keep in mind we're speaking in hypotheticals

Not really so hypothetical, NetFlix for months now has been giving indications they are going to be changing their rate structure.


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by AVonGauss:

Not really so hypothetical, NetFlix for months now has been giving indications they are going to be changing their rate structure.

that's why i italicized "just"

and to your point of Netflix now paying the ISPs, it seems to me that they'll now be paying the ISP in addition to the CDNs. Which, as far as i've heard, is somewhat new. I can't remember ever hearing of an internet content company directly paying an ISP for improved access, but i'd be curious to know if/where that's happened.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

No, it means comcast won't need to raise rates to pay for Netflix customer traffic.

 
Comcast never needed Netflix traffic as an excuse to raise rates.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 edit

3 recommendations

reply to train_wreck
They aren't really paying for "improved access", what's changing is NetFlix is now paying the ISP directly for transit rather than a third party. By eliminating one more person in the loop, the cost for the same usage should (theoretically) go down. The CDN aspects is a value added service on top of the transit costs, NetFlix has already started (2012) the process of building its own CDN which should also dramatically save them money especially in the long term.

This really isn't a lot different than what Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and slew of other companies have had to go through as their usage increased. What is different about NetFlix is they don't have the same processing requirements that a Facebook has and hence haven't gone down the path of building their own datacenters so the transit portion of the equation is much easier to see.

The irony is to those claiming this changes the way the Internet works or is an encroachment on "net neutrality" - its exactly the opposite, it keeps the Internet working the way it has been. The change would have been if the large ISPs took NetFlix up on the Open Connect deal, which would have definitely encroached upon net neutrality and changed the way the Internet does business - not to mention make it harder for a NetFlix competitor to compete.

Comcast is not likely to be nominated for sainthood anytime soon, but I really don't think they were doing anything particularly devious in regard to this issue. If we look back at when the massive amount of reports started coming in, it directly correlates to when NetFlix started opening up its "Super HD" offering to all users and thus significantly increasing the amount of traffic they were generating.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to train_wreck
A bunch of data centers peer (paid) directly with Comcast. SoftLayer is probably the biggest one that has a variety of customers. As mentioned in the article, Facebook, Google and Microsoft also pay Comcast for peering.

I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix is paying Comcast slightly more per megabit than it did to Cogent, but not appreciably more. But the overall bandwidth bill will be higher because now that the routes are uncongested people will stream at higher definition than before, and stream more because they don't get frustrated due to buffering.

The bigger issue for Netflix here is that now, if they want to reach Comcast customers with any sort of quality of service, they really have to pay Comcast directly for the privilege. No competitive bandwidth market anymore...which kind of breaks the idea of the Internet as a network of networks on relatively equal footing at the large end of the spectrum. Technically you can put your website on whatever host you want, but above a certain bandwidth those hosts that don't pay Comcast to play won't have good connectivity during peak periods, even if both sides of the interconnection point are otherwise uncongested.

Granted, Comcast provides value to some hosts that direct-connect, such that those hosts don't have to haul bits over miles on their own, or pay someone else to do it. But when there's no competition for getting bits reliably to the largest concentration of broadband subscriber in the US, there's a lot that that provider can do to abuse its market position.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
reply to train_wreck
those on network caches are similar and had their own cost which came from some Comcast customers fees too.
I'm not sure how much if any Netflix will raise their rates but they won't be keeping as much of it as they were hoping to before.

iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
reply to AVonGauss
Akamai operates its own "edge caches" deep within ISP networks. That isn't a violation of Net Neutrality. Why are you saying that Netflix OpenConnect is such a violation? It's not like OpenConnect enabled ISPs are prioritizing traffic from Netflix's peering connections or collocated boxes over other traffic, more than what standard TCP does when you decrease the latency between two points.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to iansltx
Click for full size
said by iansltx:

A bunch of data centers peer (paid) directly with Comcast. SoftLayer is probably the biggest one that has a variety of customers. As mentioned in the article, Facebook, Google and Microsoft also pay Comcast for peering

Sometimes it's as simple as crossing the street

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to iansltx
said by iansltx:

Akamai operates its own "edge caches" deep within ISP networks. That isn't a violation of Net Neutrality. Why are you saying that Netflix OpenConnect is such a violation?

They're not likely as deep as you think they are and I believe they have entered in to a business relationship with those ISPs to provide that service - not unlike NetFlix has now done with Comcast.

The word I used was "encroached" not "violation".


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

Comcast is likely to be nominated for sainthood anytime soon, but I really don't think they were doing anything particularly devious in regard to this issue. If we look back at when the massive amount of reports started coming in, it directly correlates to when NetFlix started opening up its "Super HD" offering to all users and thus significantly increasing the amount of traffic they were generating.

I suppose that Neflix, being at times 1/3 of all internet traffic, is quite the special case here. And I didn't realize Facebook, Google et al. were paying Comcast directly; i'd always assumed they paid their CDN host, who then peered with Comcast.

Very interesting stuff to an outsider like me.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
said by train_wreck:

And I didn't realize Facebook, Google et al. were paying Comcast directly; i'd always assumed they paid their CDN host, who then peered with Comcast.

I'm not sure if Facebook, Google or anyone else is paying Comcast (or any other ISP) money directly, though if I had to guess I would think its likely - following the money isn't as easy as one would think. For POP locations, a third party data center is likely used and they may include Comcast as part of their mix. The one given fact is you'll pay on both ends of the pipe.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to camper
said by camper:

Comcast never needed Netflix traffic as an excuse to raise rates.

My Comcast internet service is about the same price (after inflation) as it was10 years ago when I first signed up and is at 50/10 vs the 3/1 speed offered then.
I wish I could say the same about gas prices or a leg of lamb.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

Netflix may or may not need to charge more, but it will only be Netflix customers paying for THEIR Netflix traffic, as it should be.

So will you give me a kudo, or three, for picking up your Netflix tab?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

No, it means comcast won't need to raise rates to pay for Netflix customer traffic.
Netflix may or may not need to charge more, but it will only be Netflix customers paying for THEIR Netflix traffic, as it should be.

Not sure how Comcast (or any caps in the US work), but my cap of 250 GB from 2 pm to 2 am (unlimited 2am to 2 pm) means that I can use 250 GB of any type of data I want, anytime I want, during the month. It costs the same to push through 6 Mbps Netflix data as it does 6 Mbps Linux ISO, news, porn or whatever else gets you going online.

So if someone chooses to use their data for Netflix, then that's their choice. It's a very, very dangerous (for consumers) sentiment to say that Netflix users should pay for THEIR data. If Netflix users have a specific payment to make, so to do all other types of data going through. The ISP's should be a dumb pipe accepting whatever their customers want to download (within the law).

It's a dangerous and slippery slope which completely eliminates the concept of net neutrality and if enough providers force this, could lead to tiered or packaged internet. Today Netflix, soon other video providers, eventually you're paying a news package, sports package, movie package, etc.

Does that pricing model sound familiar? Sounds like cable to me.

said by jimothy :

of course netflix is paying comcast less than what they paid cogent but all the net neutrality morons wont bother reading that or trying to understand any facts. fucking morons

The fact that Comcast is forcing Netflix to pay directly is an attack on net neutrality. Are they slowing down any other data, or just Netflix? If just Netflix, that's the issue.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
said by markf:

The fact that Comcast is forcing Netflix to pay directly is an attack on net neutrality. Are they slowing down any other data, or just Netflix? If just Netflix, that's the issue.

Fact? Any data to support your assertion that Comcast or any other ISP has in the last couple of months intentionally "slowed down" or "throttled" NetFlix or any other content provider for that matter?

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
I did follow that up with the question. You even have that as part of the quote.

If Netflix (or any other data) is not going through properly as has been reported from various users, then they're oversubscribed and have a network problem that they need to take care of.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:

I wish I could say the same about gas prices or a leg of lamb.

 
Gas and lamb are not technology.

For grins I dug up an old Computer Shopper magazine from the depths of my spare room, the most recent one I have, from 1991.

Let's go shopping for a PC...

Intel 80486 33MHz CPU
64K cache RAM
8MB RAM (expandable to 64MB)
1.2MB 5.25" floppy
1.44MB 3.5" floppy
200MB 15mS IDE hard drive with 64K multi-segmented cache
16-bit VGA with 1MB
14" monitor
keyboard, mouse
MS-DOS 5.0
MS Windows 3.0

$3395 from Gateway 2000

If you wanted a system with a 16MHz 80286 CPU, you could bring the price down to $1395.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to markf
said by markf:

they're oversubscribed and have a network problem that they need to take care of.

The Internet by its very nature is oversubscribed, but not to mince words... I'm not sure who you meant by "they" for sure, but what you've seen today via the announcement is NetFlix and Comcast (they) fixing the problem. For Comcast users, this certainly wasn't the only solution NetFlix could have chosen which tends to lead one to believe it was also the one that made the most sense for NetFlix as well.

While I agree this probably should have been resolved sooner by all parties involved, this has never been even remotely a "net neutrality" issue.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by AVonGauss:

The Internet by its very nature is oversubscribed

 
To be a bit more precise in your comment... it is not the Internet that is oversubscribed, but it is the ISPs who are oversubscribing their ability to deliver bandwidth to the Internet.

The Internet is not the same thing as the ISPs.
 
 
said by AVonGauss:

this probably should have been resolved sooner by all parties involved

 
An example of understatement.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
said by camper:

To be a bit more precise in your comment...

Its actually oversubscribed, everywhere... There is no way all end points (servers and end users alike) could be running at full throttle all the time.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

"they"

They would be Comcast.

My ISP has no problems delivering streaming video.

A few months ago I had slowdowns and buffering while watching NHL Game Center Live, ISP upgraded something on their end as they told me they were in the process of doing and since then I can watch whatever I want in the evenings in High Quality with no slowdowns.

Comcast customers are the only ones who really know what's going on. If everything was slow, then it's a capacity issue. Based on the information available, Netflix is paying Comcast to get their traffic through smoothly. That is a net neutrality issue if everyone else's data is already going through smooth.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

There is no way all end points (servers and end users alike) could be running at full throttle all the time.

Absolutely right on that, but then the pricing model needs to change for everyone and not cherry pick certain types of data going through.

If it's bogged down at certain times, every bit of data should cost the same, whether it's Netflix, YouTube, Skype or grandma's email.


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

Its actually oversubscribed, everywhere... There is no way all end points (servers and end users alike) could be running at full throttle all the time.

 

I agree.

But I am making the distinction between the on-ramps to the Internet (the end points you mention above) and the Internet itself.

Let's suppose I have a connection to the Internet that can deliver its full capacity all the time, 24/7. Let's also suppose that I have a server that I am "talking" to which also has a connection that can deliver its full capacity all the time, 24/7.

Those two can talk to each other all the time at full throttle. So from the vantage point of those two connections, the Internet is not oversubscribed.

That's why I wanted to clarify what you mentioned --- the Internet is not oversubscribed, in your own words the ISPs have oversubscribed the endpoints.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to camper
said by camper:

200MB 15mS IDE hard drive

Wow! That's massive.

When I (or I should say my parents) bought our first 386SX 20 Mhz with 1MB RAM, the sales guy told us that 120MB HD would be enough capacity to last forever...


train_wreck

join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to camper
said by camper:

the Internet is not oversubscribed, in your own words the ISPs have oversubscribed the endpoints.

and this is the balance that has to be struck, at what congestion level is the service still acceptable?

btw, that's a wild wild price for a 33MHz system :0