dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2187

Recon
@50.97.94.x

Recon to rebus9

Anon

to rebus9

Re: Possible Testing of New Netflix-Verizon Direct Peering?

said by rebus9:

said by Geot :

Netflix should not get a free ride anyway. If they are going to make money flooding the internet with video, they should pay for the increased expense to move all that video around.

Umm, tell me HOW, precisely, is Netflix getting anything remotely resembling a free ride? They pay their transits a pile of $money every month to carry every single megabit of traffic they generate.

Well lol they weren't paying enough then as the CDN approach clearly stunk.

Netflix should bear the transit costs, not the ISP. I don't want to give my ISP another excuse to raise my bill.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

1 edit

7 recommendations

rebus9

Member

said by Recon :

said by rebus9:

said by Geot :

Netflix should not get a free ride anyway. If they are going to make money flooding the internet with video, they should pay for the increased expense to move all that video around.

Umm, tell me HOW, precisely, is Netflix getting anything remotely resembling a free ride? They pay their transits a pile of $money every month to carry every single megabit of traffic they generate.

Well lol they weren't paying enough then as the CDN approach clearly stunk.

Netflix should bear the transit costs, not the ISP. I don't want to give my ISP another excuse to raise my bill.

This is so frustrating.

Folks, each end of the connection pays their own way to the meet-me-room. Netflix $pays$ Cogent (and others) to send data to the peering location. You $pay$ your ISP to bring it from the peering location to your home. End of story!!!!!

So you think Netflix should pay more? Why? Where do you draw that line?

How much "toll" should DSLR pay your ISP? After all, you're reading this post which means you pulled down some data from DLSR's servers.

Should WebHostingTalk pay your ISP? TheOnion? TMZ? Vine? How about the Stock Photos website? Should Ubuntu pay more? After all, Linux distros are large files and popular.

Should Twitter pay the toll also? Should Instagram?

Where is that line drawn? At what _____ Gbps?

Nobody seems to get it. Peering is PART OF THE COST OF BEING AN ISP. You engineer your peers to handle whatever load YOUR CUSTOMERS are generating. And yes, YOU the customer are creating the load. You ORIGINATE the request. Netflix's role is to send you what you ordered, and they have ALREADY PAID THEIR TRANSITS to deliver those bytes to the ISP's front door.

YOU have already PAID your ISP to carry it the rest of the way. But WAIT. Verizon wants to be paid by TWO parties to do ONE JOB.

Their leverage? Degrading the experience for YOU, their own paying customers.
blue_trooper
join:2007-04-17
Exton, PA

blue_trooper

Member

NetFlix generates enough traffic that they need to bypass Cogent and connect directly to the ISP. Whatever they are paying their transits, the job isn't getting done. Do you have NetFlix? Are you aware of the frequent traffic problems? Those problems aren't between the ISP and the consumer they are between NetFlix and the ISP's.

Twitter, TMZ, etc. do not have this traffic problem. NetFlix customers pay NetFlix for their digital content. Consumers do not pay Twitter or Instagram.

Your analogies are not good ones.
promisic
join:2013-10-13
19210

1 recommendation

promisic

Member

said by blue_trooper:

NetFlix generates enough traffic that they need to bypass Cogent and connect directly to the ISP. Whatever they are paying their transits, the job isn't getting done. Do you have NetFlix? Are you aware of the frequent traffic problems? Those problems aren't between the ISP and the consumer they are between NetFlix and the ISP's.

Twitter, TMZ, etc. do not have this traffic problem. NetFlix customers pay NetFlix for their digital content. Consumers do not pay Twitter or Instagram.

Your analogies are not good ones.

You do not pay YouTube, and YouTube suffers on FiOS. So your analogy is not right, not rebus9.

You clearly do not value Internet freedom and you take Internet for granted.

Also, Netflix is NOT dumping content, but sends that content to VERIZON user that REQUESTS THAT CONTENT!

I totally agree with rebus9. Could not said better myself!

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

2 recommendations

rebus9 to blue_trooper

Member

to blue_trooper
said by blue_trooper:

NetFlix generates enough traffic that they need to bypass Cogent and connect directly to the ISP. Whatever they are paying their transits, the job isn't getting done. Do you have NetFlix? Are you aware of the frequent traffic problems?

Again, you are missing the point. This fight is between the TRANSIT PROVIDERS and the ISPs, NOT directly with Netflix.

Netflix pays THEIR transits big money to shuttle the traffic. It is up to THOSE TRANSITS to handle peering agreements with the ISPs.

Why is that so hard to understand???

But OK, let's play your game for a minute. Suppose Twitter and TMZ generated a lot more traffic. At what point should THEY have to buy private peering?

10 Gbps? 30 Gbps? 100 Gbps? 1 Tbps? What volume is "too much"?
said by blue_trooper:

Those problems aren't between the ISP and the consumer they are between NetFlix and the ISP's.

Verizon and Comcast made it their customers' problem when they INTENTIONALLY allowed peering to saturate IN ORDER TO FORCE Netflix into a separate deal.
rebus9

2 edits

rebus9 to blue_trooper

Member

to blue_trooper
said by blue_trooper:

Your analogies are not good ones.

Try this one.

Pretend you sell Widgets. A lot of them, and their boxes are big and heavy.

You pay FedEx a lot of money to ship these packages.

But-- uh oh-- there is a town in Iowa that has a narrow road that becomes congested when all those FedEx vehicles cross it.

FedEx offers to PAY the expenses to widen that road, but the town says NO. Instead, they say YOU THE SHIPPER need to pay them directly for access to that town.

You say, "I have already paid FedEx to carry the shipment. You need to work out the road congestion issue with FedEx."

The town says NO. By refusing to widen the road, even when FedEx offered to pay all costs, the town INTENTIONALLY ALLOWS traffic congestion to build and your FedEx shipments are delayed so badly that YOUR customers are suffering and complaining.

The town demands YOU THE SHIPPER pay THEM a SEPARATE TOLL for access to a special express lane.

Now-- how is that ANY different than the Verizon/Comcast/Cogent/Level3/Netflix issue?
blue_trooper
join:2007-04-17
Exton, PA

blue_trooper to promisic

Member

to promisic
said by promisic:

You clearly do not value Internet freedom and you take Internet for granted.

No. I just don't live in a fantasyland nor do I believe that the ISP's are conspiring to slow down NetFlix (or YouTube). Because nobody pays for YouTube nobody has a vested interest in fixing the problem.
Expand your moderator at work

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

2 recommendations

rebus9 to blue_trooper

Member

to blue_trooper

Re: Possible Testing of New Netflix-Verizon Direct Peering?

said by blue_trooper:

nor do I believe that the ISP's are conspiring to slow down NetFlix (or YouTube).

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

But the absence of conspiracy does not make Verizon's and Comcast's actions any less evil. The fact they intentionally allowed their own customers to suffer should be an eye-opener to anyone who thought the ISPs would act responsibly, ethically, or in the best interests of their customers.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

2 recommendations

nothing00 to blue_trooper

Member

to blue_trooper
said by blue_trooper:

Because nobody pays for YouTube nobody has a vested interest in fixing the problem.

Wow.

You're paying - right now - for access to YouTube. And everything else on the Internet.

Google has a vested interest in making sure you can access YouTube.

The problem is, for some crazy reason (we'll just call it lack of competition/regulation), your ISP doesn't seem to care that they should be providing you with adequate service. Service that you're paying handsomely for.

And I'm not sure that YouTube is a good example. Google might be paying some ISPs...
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss to rebus9

Premium Member

to rebus9
said by rebus9:

Now-- how is that ANY different than the Verizon/Comcast/Cogent/Level3/Netflix issue?

Using your FedEx "analogy", FedEx (Cogent) does not want to pay the taxes on gasoline used to maintain and expand the roads. Building or expanding a road is fine and dandy, developers all the time pay for this, but consumers still pay the tax on gasoline to maintain and future expansions / changes.

Back to bits, Cogent is just wanting to provide a small sum for an "upgrade", but still intends on charging their customers by the bit. See the irony?

With NetFlix making deals directly with Comcast, Verizon - they are cutting out the middle guy who also wants to make a profit and probably saving a few bucks in the process while obtaining a much better product.
blue_trooper
join:2007-04-17
Exton, PA

blue_trooper to rebus9

Member

to rebus9
said by rebus9:

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

You?
said by rebus9:

Verizon and Comcast made it their customers' problem when they INTENTIONALLY allowed peering to saturate IN ORDER TO FORCE Netflix into a separate deal.

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

1 recommendation

AVonGauss to nothing00

Premium Member

to nothing00
said by nothing00:

And I'm not sure that YouTube is a good example. Google might be paying some ISPs...

The sender of data has almost always traditionally had the responsibility for paying for any transit if required. Even though it gets a bit murkier when ISPs are also transit providers, the same still holds true. Your monthly subscriber fee to your ISP does not pay for the Internet.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

1 recommendation

nothing00

Member

said by AVonGauss:

The sender of data has almost always traditionally had the responsibility for paying for any transit if required. Even though it gets a bit murkier when ISPs are also transit providers, the same still holds true. Your monthly subscriber fee to your ISP does not pay for the Internet.

::face palm::

Here are a few clips from the FiOS homepage:

"FiOS replaces them by building a network of 100% fiber optics, making it an even FASTER way to transfer data for Internet,"
"FiOS is enabling Internet speeds up to 500/100 Mbps"
"Crazy-fast Internet speeds"
"FiOS Internet: Speed Matters"
"Everyone in your household has a few devices—and a huge need for Internet connectivity."
"With FiOS Quantum Internet, you can all jump on and off the Web as you please and without interruption, 24/7."
"75/35 Mbps is perfect for a home with multiple devices on the Internet—playing games, downloading music and streaming movies at the same time."

... etc etc

If you're going to claim that Internet access is not really what they're selling, what exactly do you believe we're paying for then?

Your claim only makes sense when we're talking about transit, not ISPs.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

1 recommendation

AVonGauss

Premium Member

said by nothing00:

Your claim only makes sense when we're talking about transit, not ISPs.

To the way you want to view how the Internet works and has traditionally been financed. The reality however is much different than you like to idealize.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

1 recommendation

nothing00

Member

Okay, great. I'll entertain that. So please, what are we paying Verizon for then?
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss

Premium Member

said by nothing00:

Okay, great. I'll entertain that. So please, what are we paying Verizon for then?

You're definitely not paying for Google's or NetFlix's transit costs, you're paying for your connection to the Internet and the required supporting infrastructure to maintain it. Infrastructure being what you can easily see by looking at any number of "telephone" poles outside, but also the required technical and administrative staff to support it.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00

Member

said by AVonGauss:

You're definitely not paying for Google's or NetFlix's transit costs,

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they've been paying.
said by AVonGauss:

you're paying for your connection to the Internet

Are you sure? Because it sounds like I'm only paying for the poles, wires, shareholder dividends, technical gizmos, quarterly profits and helpful outsourced technical support people.

Because if I was paying for Internet access you wouldn't have a point.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss

Premium Member

Not to spoil your fun, but why not go out and price a few commercial (non-residential, non-small business) connections to the Internet at the speeds you have available and get back to us with how much you are being ripped off per month on your residential connection rate.

Are ISPs making a profit? Absolutely, so is NetFlix and Google for that matter.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00

Member

So you really don't have an answer. Good to know.

Do you really think it's fun responding to you?

In any case...

I find it strange that I'm paying for "Internet access" yet I'm not paying for my transit costs. But really, it's every other company on the Internet that's supposed to be paying for my transit costs.

I'm not really paying for access to the "Internet" as claimed in the ads? Hmm. I mean, from the ad it sure sounds like I'm not signing up for "Verizon Intranet, with select partner services." It actually sounds like they promise, "Internet access at blazing speeds!"

Are you really under the impression that home provisioning is the same as business provisioning? Because I don't see the point in pricing commercial bandwidth for my usage. Before you again suggest that I do, maybe you should. It turns out that commercial bandwidth is cheap.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

2 recommendations

AVonGauss

Premium Member

said by nothing00:

So you really don't have an answer. Good to know.

You just don't like the answer, there's a difference.
said by nothing00:

Do you really think it's fun responding to you?

Judging by your replies, it must be, but I was actually referring to your posts on this thread and other threads including the news articles where you are describing how you think the Internet should work vs how it actually does and has been working for the last several decades.
said by nothing00:

Are you really under the impression that home provisioning is the same as business provisioning? Because I don't see the point in pricing commercial bandwidth for my usage. Before you again suggest that I do, maybe you should. It turns out that commercial bandwidth is cheap.

The point was a typical FIOS, HSI or any other fiber residential connection provides a lot of value and capability that even five years ago was out of reach of most residential consumers. The reason why a residential connection is significantly lower in cost than a commercial connection is based on the shared infrastructure and the expected usage patterns of the customer base as a whole or regions. A commercial user has an expectation of service levels (i.e. sustained rates) and pays for it, plain and simple. Commercial bandwidth as you are calling it from a data center has gotten more competitive, but that's not a fair comparison which is why the commercial (i.e. dedicated) vs residential discussion came up.
said by nothing00:

I find it strange that I'm paying for "Internet access" yet I'm not paying for my transit costs. But really, it's every other company on the Internet that's supposed to be paying for my transit costs.

I'm not really paying for access to the "Internet" as claimed in the ads? Hmm. I mean, from the ad it sure sounds like I'm not signing up for "Verizon Intranet, with select partner services." It actually sounds like they promise, "Internet access at blazing speeds!"

As a residential consumer, you don't directly have "transit costs" - the transit costs incurred by the ISP to send your data is baked in to your monthly fee. They may pay this out to a transit provider and/or use their own transit network if available to deliver the data. Content providers (ala NetFlix, Google) have to make arrangements either with a DC or directly with a transit provider to deliver the data they want to send, this may or may not involve a paid settlement agreement. Just because you send a request to a content provider does not mean the reply is "paid for" by your connection. While "charging" the sender of data is not the only way to do it, its one of the more fair methods in my opinion (think DDOS).

What's been changing over the last decade is US ISPs have entered the transit market and no longer rely and pay as much to transit providers like Level 3 or Cogent. Is this a good or bad thing? Who knows, everybody is still writing a check the only thing that really has changed is who the check gets written to. The one possible upside is that by having a direct relationship with Verizon or any other national ISP is that one layer (i.e. L3, Cogent) is eliminated when it comes time to pass blame when things aren't working as they should. The number of content providers that will every directly peer with any transit provider that is also the ISP is very small when compared to the Internet as whole as most will just use the transit arranged by the DC (at a cost) or make an arrangement with L3, Cogent (also at cost) to deliver data.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

1 recommendation

nothing00

Member

I'll even give that post a "Recommendation" for engaging in actual conversation.
said by AVonGauss:

What's been changing over the last decade is US ISPs have entered the transit market and no longer rely and pay as much to transit providers like Level 3 or Cogent. Is this a good or bad thing?

This is the whole issue. On one hand you describe the Internet as some static market where the rules haven't changed in decades. Then you write what I quoted above.

Obviously the Internet has not been a static market for decades. It has changed quite a bit over time and this next phase - of ISPs demanding direct payment for services on the Internet is extremely dangerous. Other countries have recognized this and put in protections. Here in the US we are relying of the good graces of your local mono/duopoly to set "commercially reasonable" access fees to other companies. (*)

One by one, everyone will find themselves in the "Slow Lane" unless they pay up. This has market access implications, anti-competitive implications, free speech implications and I'm sure the list goes on.

That is a tax on the Internet and not how it should be. It raises costs to all involved (except the residential ISP) and that is not the direction data costs should be going for our economy. Access to high speed data services should be increasing. And so should the speeds.

So yes, you can say whatever you want about "my" "crazy" ideas but they're successful in other countries who have better Internet access than we do. I don't believe that's a coincidence.

Let's talk about the future here. How would you like to see things work?

(*) "Hello Netflix, this is Comcast calling. Since we now cover 30% of your user base I think that a 'commercially reasonable' access rate would be about 15% of your profits."
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss

Premium Member

said by nothing00:

of ISPs demanding direct payment for services on the Internet is extremely dangerous. Other countries have recognized this and put in protections. Here in the US we are relying of the good graces of your local mono/duopoly to set "commercially reasonable" access fees to other companies. (*)

I actually agree with this, but this is very different than what just occurred with transit deals NetFlix recently made. This would be like NetFlix paying Cogent for transit and additionally directly paying Comcast an additional fee on top of whatever Cogent may have to pay for transit to Comcast.
said by nothing00:

So yes, you can say whatever you want about "my" "crazy" ideas

I never said crazy, I believe the term I used was idealistic. I would also be careful generalizing other markets, there are domestic issues just as we have here in the US and the whole crossing country boundaries can add additional complexity. The scale in terms of physical size and usage is also very different.
said by nothing00:

(*) "Hello Netflix, this is Comcast calling. Since we now cover 30% of your user base I think that a 'commercially reasonable' access rate would be about 15% of your profits."

I can't see the future, but I can almost guarantee Comcast and Verizon will both want (try) to increase their rate the next time the contract negotiations occur in 5+ years. Will they be able to, most likely will depend on what's occurring in the transit market at that time.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9 to blue_trooper

Member

to blue_trooper
said by blue_trooper:

said by rebus9:

Who said anything about a conspiracy?

You?
said by rebus9:

Verizon and Comcast made it their customers' problem when they INTENTIONALLY allowed peering to saturate IN ORDER TO FORCE Netflix into a separate deal.

Learn the definition of "conspiracy".
rebus9

rebus9 to AVonGauss

Member

to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

Using your FedEx "analogy", FedEx (Cogent) does not want to pay the taxes on gasoline used to maintain and expand the roads.

That's what the ISP's charge their own customers for.

But I'm clearly wasting my time, because you just can't see that part of the equation.
rebus9

1 edit

1 recommendation

rebus9 to AVonGauss

Member

to AVonGauss
said by AVonGauss:

The sender of data has almost always traditionally had the responsibility for paying for any transit if required.

The definition of transit, is carriage between two endpoint networks.

Network A --- (transit provider/s) --- Network B

Endpoint networks DO NOT charge each other when a transit provider sits between them.
Expand your moderator at work