dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1101
JohnShade
join:2009-03-07
Pearland, TX

1 edit

1 recommendation

JohnShade

Member

[Connectivity] Why Open Connect is such a sore spot

There is a meme which says "information should be free". I can agree with that. I am an InfoJunkie. The current issue with "Open Connect" is that while the infomation (data) may be "free", the physical infrastructure (routers, servers, cabling, power, techs, etc.) costs $money$.
Netflix would like to paint Comcast as the bad guy because they want money to pay for all the new infrastucture that is required for the larger amount of data traffic.
Make no mistake, streaming video at TV sizes is a !lot! of data instead of jacking up the price to the customers.
If Netflix doesn't have to pay Comcast for the infrastructure, they get to keep more money (and that means some CEO gets a bonus).
None of the technology is free. Someone is going to pay for it.
Acct101
Premium Member
join:2011-09-20
Bensalem, PA

Acct101

Premium Member

[Connectivity] Re: [Content] Why Open Connect is such a sore spot

We the customer ends up paying for it. We always do.

flwpwr
@67.160.90.x

1 recommendation

flwpwr to JohnShade

Anon

to JohnShade
The model everyone is mad is not existing:

Let me get this straight, you want me to build a network out of my pocket then not pay me to transport your data across MY network, and then tell me I am bad if I don't increase my network bandwidth to accommodate your customers so I can meet YOUR needs you CHARGE money for, while paying me NOTHING? Is that what I am understanding? I'd tell netflix to go eff off and block them all together if they tried to cripple my network and stiff me with a larger bill and NOT pay anything to help it. I'm sorry but that's just business. In networking we call that flooding, and its generally the work of malicious activity. Meanwhile your transporting data that cripples my PRIMARY money making business, so I will go bankrupt. People seriously think this sounds like the way it should be? Seriously?

Put yourself in their shoes, people get mad now that their teenager is hogging the LAN bandwidth, imagine some one not in your house using it, charging you neighbors, and NOT paying you while you PAY the bill. You think you'd just say oh well that's the way it is? I know better.
GTFan
join:2004-12-03
Austell, GA

GTFan

Member

This the wrong forum (should be in Comcast HSI), but let me get this straight - you want Comcast to get paid twice for the same traffic, once from the customer and again from every heavy use provider right? Because that's where we're heading if the FCC gets its way with the new end-of-the-open-internet rules.
JohnShade
join:2009-03-07
Pearland, TX

JohnShade to flwpwr

Member

to flwpwr
Yep spot on. It's wonderful idea, sorta like world peace
JohnShade

JohnShade to GTFan

Member

to GTFan
No. My point was that the Internet and the services/etc. associated with itcost $$$$ t prvide. There is an awesome phrase coined by Robert Heinlein - "TANSTAAFL". It's from his novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" Check it out. It stands for "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
ualdayan
join:2004-07-17
Antioch, TN

ualdayan

Member

Yes, all that hardware does cost money. Which is why I, as a customer, pay money to Comcast each month in order to have them transport that data from it's source to me (and the public reports to stockholders show it's a VERY profitable business - much more so than the cable side of things). To then have them claim they aren't getting paid by Netflix so why should they transfer data from Netflix to me is just absolutely wrong - they are getting paid - by me!

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to JohnShade

MVM

to JohnShade

Re: [Connectivity] Why Open Connect is such a sore spot

said by JohnShade:

Netflix would like to paint Comcast as the bad guy because they want money to pay for all the new infrastucture that is required for the larger amount of data traffic.

Netflix does pay for their outbound traffic. But the only reason Netflix traffic traverses Comcast transit is because Comcast subscribers request it. Comcast subscribers are paying Comcast to deliver information from the Internet to their (the subscribers') connections.

So whom is responsible to ensure that Comcast users have a "Comcastic" Internet experience?
JohnShade
join:2009-03-07
Pearland, TX

JohnShade

Member

It's actually not a "transit", it's a "delivery".
Netflix, which is a "content provider" sends data from it's server farms to Cogent, a "Tier 1 service provider". A Tier 1 company actually owns and runs fiber optic backbone and interconnect server/router farms.
The Tier 1 company (and there are several) then transits the data either to another Tier 1 system (if the destination network is on a different Tier 1) or a network. From there, the receiving network delivers the data.
The way this all ties together is fairly simple. Netflix has been using Cogent to move it's data. Cogent, from what I have read/seen on the Net, seems to have issues with getting the data moved quickley and efficiently. This has caused numerous complaints about Netflix service.
The idea behind the Netflix/Comcast deal is that instead of Netflix paying Cogent to ship data to Level3 and then to us for delivery, they will do a direct peer-to-peer interconnect with us. The issue is Netflix and "Open Connect"
Normally, companies have peering agreements. A peering agreement is a deal where two companies agree to trade data transfer in a size block for size block deal. Company A and Company B agree to send no more than 25 terrabytes of data across the other's network per month. The agreement usually stipulates (to my knowledge) that if 1 company exceeds the data cap, then they will pay the other company "X" amount per "X" bytes.
Netflix wants "Open Connect" which is a deal where the companies just agree to send data without any caps or payments. This puts the all the economic burden on the individual companies.
As Netflix is a "content provider", they generate outgoing data, but have very low incoming data. This model is VERY attractive to them as they only have to keep up the outgoing feeds from the server farm and don't have any new expenses for delivery.
In contrast, Comcast, which is an ISP (just like AT&T, AOL(sorta), Time Warner, etc..) would have to pay more infrastucture costs to handle the increased incoming data flow. I find it amusing that the "Open Connect" model seems to be championed/pushed by Netflix alone out of all the major players.
"So whom is responsible to ensure that Comcast users have a "Comcastic" Internet experience?" Yes, that is on Comcast. We, like every other for profit business on the planet, try to deliver a service at a price point that customers will pay.
The reason that the whole Netflix "Open Connect" annoys me is that it seems, IMHO, that Netflix wants something for nothing. I have no issue with setting something up to help Netflix deliver it's service/content to Comcast customers.
I do have an issue with what I perceive to be an attempt by Netflix to increase their profit margin by offloading all the cost of delivering that content/service (which can be fairly substantial once you factor in the increased payroll/overhead) onto the ISP's, which (yes) will get passed to the customers. Passing costs to the customer has been a fact of business ever since "business" has existed. It's called "making a profit". You can make money ethically or unethically. I choose the former

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

DarkLogix

Premium Member

Its called "transit" because that's a category of ISP to ISP conntection.

"transit" means that one ISP is better than the other and its more of a benefit to be linked to one than the other so the one that benefits the most from the "transit" agreement pays the other.

And peering agreements aren't
said by JohnShade:

send no more than 25 terrabytes

But rather
Comp A agrees to send atleast X data to show that they're a benefit to the other.

Level 3 has had issues with other Tier 1 ISP's before and generally they win because one way to prove you're the "bigger dawg" is to cut off the other ISP, then the one that suffers most for the link getting cut is the loser and thus isn't worthy of a Peering agreement but only a transit agreement.

the difference between a peering and a transit agreement is peering is considered mutually equitable, and transit is more one sided, so in a transit agreement the "big dawg" gets paid per data.

In the case of Comcast v Netflix its clear to the public that Netflix is a valuable service but at the same time Comcast wants to claim they're bigger and shouldn't be "peering" but "
transiting" with Netflix

Open Connect is a CDN and is meant to lower the stress on the ISP to ISP links but then the ISP has to set up a high bandwidth link to Open Connect.

IMO it should be considered Peering as its mutually equitable to both parties, if Comcast users can't get a good connection to Netflix they might leave for another ISP but at the same time some might not consider Netflix such a high priority.

Tier 1's Peer to other Tier 1's but transit to anything less.

pende_tim
Premium Member
join:2004-01-04
Selbyville, DE

pende_tim to JohnShade

Premium Member

to JohnShade
Ok. Since Netflix is now paying Comcast, does this mean I can tell Comcast to Bugger Off when they come around for the next rate increase to pay for infrastructure upgrades? ( Not that I expect any rate increase while Comcast is doing nice to impress folks for the TWC deal )

I feel I am already paying for delivery and Comcast is trying to double dip here.

jlivingood
Premium Member
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA

jlivingood to JohnShade

Premium Member

to JohnShade
said by JohnShade:

There is a meme which says "information should be free". I can agree with that.

As an aside many people forget there was more to this quote. See »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In ··· _be_free

"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."
JohnShade
join:2009-03-07
Pearland, TX

JohnShade

Member

Thanks for the link. I will be checking it.
JohnShade

JohnShade to DarkLogix

Member

to DarkLogix
Thank you. One of the things I love about forums is learning correctly.
JohnShade

JohnShade to DarkLogix

Member

to DarkLogix
I'm going to start digging into the info about what you've posted. I'm more of an old school geek and really want to understand the actual business side of all this.
fredthomsen
Premium Member
join:2011-03-01

fredthomsen to JohnShade

Premium Member

to JohnShade
Netflix does have a cost. They pay for their storage hardware at the ISP's peering point or edge (»www.netflix.com/openconnect). Then the ISPs pay for another 10Gb port. This seems like a even distribution of costs for something that benefits them both. Netflix pays less in transit and has better performance, and Comcast's core network burden is lessened now that the data is closer to the edge.

train_wreck
slow this bird down
join:2013-10-04
Antioch, TN
Cisco ASA 5506
Cisco DPC3939

train_wreck

Member

said by fredthomsen:

Netflix does have a cost. They pay for their storage hardware at the ISP's peering point or edge (»www.netflix.com/openconnect). Then the ISPs pay for another 10Gb port. This seems like a even distribution of costs for something that benefits them both. Netflix pays less in transit and has better performance, and Comcast's core network burden is lessened now that the data is closer to the edge.

been curious, i've read that Open Connect still requires the ISP to pay for the power to run the open connect servers, any idea if that's true?
fredthomsen
Premium Member
join:2011-03-01

fredthomsen

Premium Member

No idea but would be interesting to know. I know nothing about how much ISPs pay for in terms of electrical bills, but I can't imagine some netflix open connect racks put a huge dent. That being said, that is a cost Netflix should bear.

I wouldn't oppose netflix having to pay for the extra ports Comcast or any other ISP would have to add; however, it seems like these deals go beyond just recouping costs and actually charging for last mile priority. This is a symptom of lack of ISP competition in the US. As a Swedish ex-pat I can tell you these issues don't exist there.