dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
41
share rss forum feed


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

Space for content servers...

Google says, "We give companies like Netflix and Akamai free access to space and power in our facilities and they provide their own content servers."

One article I read was that Netflix offered to locate Netflix content servers in Comcast datacenters, but Comcast refused the offer.

Apparently, Comcast wanted full control of all the viewing information gathered by those Netflix servers, denying Netflix access to that important Netflix customer info. Without that control of information, Comcast refused to co-locate Netflix servers.


elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

2 recommendations

That doesn't make sense. If it's in their net, Comcast has full knowledge of the requests coming in, and Netflix could capture that data the same way.

This is just old school tariffs moving to the internet. Remember InterLATA.... This is just the old guys smoking stogies bringing back the glory days.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

reply to camper

Pretty sure Netflix offered the servers and expected everything else (space, power, cooling, bandwidth) for free. Not too surprising it was denied.



catchingup

@206.51.28.x

said by silbaco:

Pretty sure Netflix offered the servers and expected everything else (space, power, cooling, bandwidth) for free. Not too surprising it was denied.

As opposed to Comcast expecting to be payed to deliver service their customers already payed for. So Comcast customers are paying for nothing now. Comcast customers should be getting free Internet connections then since the content companies are paying for it.


ieolus
Support The Clecs

join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

Bingo



camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to elefante72

said by elefante72:

Comcast has full knowledge of the requests coming in

 
presuming Netflix's protocol does not encrypt.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to catchingup

No, opposed to the senders of large, inordinate amounts of data paying to upgrade peering.


rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to silbaco

The whole point of colo is no bandwidth needed. As for the space, power and cooling, surely that would be insignificant compared to the direct-peering fees they now pay. Even if they had to pay Comcast $10,000/month for space, power and cooling, that's peanuts on the grand scale of things. That kind of money would pay for some serious power and cooling.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by rradina:

The whole point of colo is no bandwidth needed. As for the space, power and cooling, surely that would be insignificant compared to the direct-peering fees they now pay.

There's always bandwidth utilized, it's just a matter of which network(s). Datacenters consume a lot of electricity and generate a lot of heat that needs to be removed. Datacenters are also not cheap to build. Those costs are definitely not insignificant.

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Never said it was overall insignificant. Read my post and then comment with clarity.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

I did.


rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

My comment is that paying for space, electricity and cooling would probably be insignificant compared to what they paid for direct peering. The data center is already built and the incremental costs shouldn't be a big deal. Once you are inside the data center, they shouldn't charge for bandwidth because it doesn't leave their network. That's the whole point of bringing the CDN inside their network. Otherwise, why bother?

Of course today's major cable ISPs don't depend much on major backbone providers anymore. They have their own nationwide fiber and being "inside" their network is a lot different than when the HFC plant was isolated in a metro area that had big drains to someone else's nationwide backbone.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by rradina:

My comment is that paying for space, electricity and cooling would probably be insignificant compared to what they paid for direct peering.

So then Netflix should pay providers to host its content caching servers instead of expecting them to be hosted for free? After all, that would save everyone money, right?
said by rradina:

The data center is already built and the incremental costs shouldn't be a big deal.

I think would be dependent on each individual datacenter. What happens when a datacenter approaches maximum capacity? Nothing incremental about cost at that point.

LucasLee

join:2010-11-26
kudos:1
reply to openbox9

one could start a dictionary with only the words you appear to misunderstand within this one thread.


rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
reply to openbox9

If it saves money over peering, why wouldn't they? It all depends on who saves the most money. What if putting a dozen CDNs inside a major cable ISP's nationwide facilities eliminates half their nationwide backbone traffic? Or is this the same old same old of cable crying over spilled milk because they didn't think of something like Netflix first?

Regarding at-capacity data centers; surely they can move low value equipment (billing, customer service, web site hosting, etc.) to someone else's cloud cheaply and effectively. This makes room for higher value targets that perhaps control or even mitigate backbone capex expenses because content is closer to their customers. It might also save money over their own internal and probably dated equipment on which that infrastructure lived.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by rradina:

If it saves money over peering, why wouldn't they?

So what does that say about Netflix's deal with Comcast? Does that suggest that Comcast is giving Netflix a really good deal on the connection? Perhaps better than Netflix's current deals with it's CDNs?

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Some have suggested it's a push. What they saved with Cogent, they spend with Comcast. I don't know if that's true. It's what I've read. Obviously this is a diminishing return type of thing. Netflix cannot peer with every ISP and doing so rather handily reduces the ideals of the Internet. Plus, they are peering with each ISP to reach the customers of that ISP which means they have no leverage when the ISP decides they want more profit. Today is never the problem. That's why combining the cost of the delivery mechanism and the service could be dangerous for the consumer. If at some point Netflix costs $79/month; 49% peering, 49% content and 2% profit, does Netflix survive when the ISP copies Netflix and can now spend 75% on content and have 25% profit since the consumer has long since paid for the plant?


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

I understand your point. Couldn't colo'ing servers in each network potentially run into similar problems?


rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Yes and on both sides of the coin. Even if colo costs are free/dirt cheap today doesn't mean they'd stay that way. OTOH, Netflix starts to look more like Akamai which hurts competition for OTT video as Netflix spends less on reaching customers which enables them to spend more on content -- thereby skewing the finances for competitors.

Net neutrality sure isn't simple. Everyone needs to get paid and everyone should get paid but it's complicated.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2

said by rradina:

Net neutrality sure isn't simple. Everyone needs to get paid and everyone should get paid but it's complicated.

A refreshing statement to read from somewhere like DSLR; thank you.