dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
30
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC to battleop

Member

to battleop

Re: Seems like a double standard to me....

said by battleop:

Netflix's demand that ISPs build out their networks so that Netflix's traffic can reach the end user with less congestion seems to me that they want special treatment of their traffic.

Where is the congestion occurring? To me it seems like it's occurring at the transit/peering end, which is something that does not require significant capital to upgrade (compared to middle/last-mile infrastructure).

If Netflix is asking to peer settlement-free at a neutral facility where an ISP already has a presence, what's the build-out cost exactly?

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

"what's the build-out cost exactly?"

Your costs are in adding capacity to your routers and the labor to go along with it along with the transport of that traffic deep into their network.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

said by battleop:

e in adding capacity to your routers and the labor to go along with it along with the transport of that traffic deep into their network.

Transport beyond transit/peering should not be a burden, if there is no congestion occurring already at those points.

Otherwise you're insinuating that an ISP would be blocking Netflix traffic outside of any direct peering relationship. If the ISP is not blocking the traffic, then that said traffic is already entering their network from another ASN.

That would also imply that they have sufficient capacity at the core level to support their subscriber's committed traffic levels, regardless of any peering relationship.

Peering should reduce latency and costs for all parties involved, that's usually the motivation behind it. It should not affect transport capacity at the middle/last-mile. Otherwise that means there is already insufficient capacity on the said ISP's network.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop

Member

"Otherwise you're insinuating that an ISP would be blocking Netflix traffic outside of any direct peering relationship. "

Where did you come up with that one?

"Otherwise you're insinuating that an ISP would be blocking Netflix traffic outside of any direct peering relationship. "

Yes, and it can be jumbled up with everyone else's traffic as it crosses the ISP's edge.

"Peering should reduce latency and costs for all parties involved,"

That's when there is a mutual benefit for both parties. A peering for a 1000:1 settlement free ratio isn't very beneficial for one of the two parties.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

said by battleop:

That's when there is a mutual benefit for both parties. A peering for a 1000:1 settlement free ratio isn't very beneficial for one of the two parties.

A CDN having an interconnect with a (largely) residential-based ISP sounds inherently asymmetrical. Should Comcast's subscribers be sending Netflix traffic to make the deal fair?

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

battleop

Member

"Should Comcast's subscribers be sending Netflix traffic to make the deal fair?"

No, that's why they are doing a paid peering arrangement. That evens it out to make it fair. Transporting 100Gb+ of traffic isn't cheap even if you are transporting the traffic across the hall.

kontos
xyzzy
join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY

kontos to battleop

Member

to battleop
said by battleop:

That's when there is a mutual benefit for both parties.

It would be a mutual benefit for both parties if one of the parties customers could leave to get better service with another provider.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC to battleop

Member

to battleop
said by battleop:

No, that's why they are doing a paid peering arrangement. That evens it out to make it fair. Transporting 100Gb+ of traffic isn't cheap even if you are transporting the traffic across the hall.

If Comcast were acting as a carrier to Netflix to transport this data to a 3rd party (in which they gain no revenue from), then I would agree.

However in this case, the ISP is already being paid by their subscribers to transport this data. Otherwise you would have to argue that the subscribers are abusing their connections, going above and beyond what they already pay their ISP.

Netflix and the ISP peer at a neutral facility. From there, the ISP is transporting the data, within their own network, to their end user (who pays them for such actions).

Where can you justify an ISP recovering additional revenue in this scenario?
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to BlueC

Member

to BlueC
LOL, don't bring logic and reason into this. That would blow away the absurdity of this entire thing.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss to battleop

Premium Member

to battleop
Before ISPs were also transit providers, they relied more heavily on other transit providers (L3, Cogent, NTT) for connecting their customer requests. As US ISPs have built up their transit networks, they rely on them less for domestic traffic and hence they are not very balanced.
AVonGauss

AVonGauss to BlueC

Premium Member

to BlueC
said by BlueC:

However in this case, the ISP is already being paid by their subscribers to transport this data. Otherwise you would have to argue that the subscribers are abusing their connections, going above and beyond what they already pay their ISP.

You're not the only one, even the mainstream press gets this wrong, but I still have no idea why people assume that because you're paying your ISP a fee for service that somehow equates to paying the other persons or companies transit (ISP) bill. What about the large amount of traffic that never hits a residential ISP?

A residential customer is only paying for the transit (data sent) they use, and the vast infrastructure required to connect their residence. The amount of your bill that could be attributable directly to transit is very small.

fluffybunny
@teksavvy.com

fluffybunny

Anon

you may not comprehend this fact - but everyone else does. i pay my ISP for internet access. that is, not for access to the pitiful ISPs network which has nothing i want and certainly not for connecting my home to the ISP network. i pay for INTERNET not for ISP network. That means they better suck up and offer netflix or any other site on the INTERNET to me for my monthly fee. i dont care how they do it. i dont care how much of my bill goes to which part. thats their problem not mine.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC

cramer

Premium Member

Read your contract... there are ZERO guarantees of speed or availability to any specific site(s) on the INTERNET. It is entirely a best effort service.

fluffybunny
@teksavvy.com

fluffybunny

Anon

well in that case they better build out their network to offer best effort. deliberately throttling links from one part of the internet is not best effort. neither is saturating links and not investing in them. thats worst effort not best effort. best effort means exactly that - they do their best to give me the internet not their network.
28201209 (banned)
join:2014-03-13

28201209 (banned) to cramer

Member

to cramer
said by cramer:

Read your contract... there are ZERO guarantees of speed or availability to any specific site(s) on the INTERNET. It is entirely a best effort service.

and that's part of the catch all excuse that they use to rationalize why it is Ok. It is part of all the other crap ISPs pull that is essentially false advertising because in the end they're not making an effort.
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
Westell 6100
Cisco PIX 501

cramer

Premium Member

No, it's the simple reality of the internet. No one entity controls the whole thing. Once it leave your network, you no longer have any control over it.

Here, however, there's a lot more mud in the water. Netflix has enough bandwidth to it's ISPs (read: Cogent), but that ISP doesn't have enough bandwidth to other networks (read: well, everywhere.) It stays that way because one side is cheap as hell (Cogent) and the others are not. (esp. Verizon) Cogent's cheapness isn't a sustainable market; instead of paying for the seriously unbalanced CDN traffic links to others, they whine to the media to paint everybody else as Evil(tm) when the simple fact is other businesses aren't going to give them something for free, making them all the profit at everybody else's expense. (If "we" give Cogent "free" links, then they will continue to attract customers away from everyone else -- being the cheapest bandwidth around -- with no increases in their own operating costs.)
28201209 (banned)
join:2014-03-13

28201209 (banned)

Member

said by cramer:

No, it's the simple reality of the internet. No one entity controls the whole thing. Once it leave your network, you no longer have any control over it.

They don't need to control the whole Internet. Just maintain their network properly.

That means don't let transit ports become saturated which providers all too often are known for especially Comcast. That means don't let peering points become saturated which happens way too often for providers large and small. That means don't let internal network links become saturated. Again that happens and it does more often than providers care to admit. All of these things are under their control.
said by cramer:

Here, however, there's a lot more mud in the water. Netflix has enough bandwidth to it's ISPs (read: Cogent), but that ISP doesn't have enough bandwidth to other networks (read: well, everywhere.) It stays that way because one side is cheap as hell (Cogent) and the others are not. (esp. Verizon) Cogent's cheapness isn't a sustainable market; instead of paying for the seriously unbalanced CDN traffic links to others, they whine to the media to paint everybody else as Evil(tm) when the simple fact is other businesses aren't going to give them something for free, making them all the profit at everybody else's expense. (If "we" give Cogent "free" links, then they will continue to attract customers away from everyone else -- being the cheapest bandwidth around -- with no increases in their own operating costs.)

Cogent is more than willing to build out their network and expand capacity at peering points. Verizon is the one not turning up peering ports and they're not cheap? Screw ball logic there. Verizon has the customers requesting the traffic not the other way around. Without Verizon's retail customers the amount of traffic would be significantly reduced so this would not even be an issue.

There is more than enough demand for transit capacity that many players can survive in the market. For many reasons they'll never come even close to having 50% of the market or anywhere near it. There are a variety of other things to take into consideration for looking at transit providers other than price alone. FYI there seems to be a common misconception that Cogent is the cheapest bandwidth around as in all the time, 100%, yet frequently that is not the case.