dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
54
« Cant always apply
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from So have they signed an agreement or not?
serge87
join:2009-11-29
New York

serge87 to UnnDunn

Member

to UnnDunn

Re: So have they signed an agreement or not?

said by UnnDunn:

They have, but Verizon is dragging their feet in implementing the needed changes.

The connections are just getting set up. Data from network research firm Renesys show the two networks already set up a test connection to carry video in the Dallas area, but major networks typically need links in dozens of cities to deliver traffic effectively.

Verizon said it plans to fulfill the terms of its agreement with Netflix over the next few months.

"We are working on the first 13 cities, and we do plan to have everything done in 2014," said Verizon spokesman Bob Elek. "All of this kerfuffle that is going on isn't affecting that."

Verizon VP David Young told CNET, "We can't just snap our fingers and the network is upgraded. We need new facilities. We have to do the equipment engineering. Build it and test it. We are doing all of that right now. And it should be completed during this year." When finished, Netflix's connection to the Verizon network will supply "adequate capacity to satisfy the needs of their subscribers."


»online.wsj.com/articles/ ··· 02004231

»arstechnica.com/business ··· verizon/

Frink
Professor
Premium Member
join:2000-07-13
Scotch Plains, NJ

Frink

Premium Member

Wow, really? You mean you just don't add new 10Gig ports to a LAG bundle on the Internet feeder pipe and call it a day?

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

2 recommendations

jmn1207 to serge87

Premium Member

to serge87
said by serge87:

Verizon VP David Young told CNET, "We can't just snap our fingers and the network is upgraded. We need new facilities. We have to do the equipment engineering. Build it and test it. We are doing all of that right now. And it should be completed during this year." When finished, Netflix's connection to the Verizon network will supply "adequate capacity to satisfy the needs of their subscribers."

It sounds like they are simply doing their job. What about the needs of Verizon's paying customers? Today their customers are requesting Netflix videos, but tomorrow it might be something else. The ISP can't always go screaming to the companies delivering the content to their front door and expect a handout for interconnections.

It doesn't make sense that this responsibility should fall onto the companies sending the data. They already paid for transit. Again, a captive customer base with large ISPs that enjoy market dominance allows for them to extort and double dip. This does not happen anywhere else with competition available.

batman
@50.182.54.x

1 recommendation

batman

Anon

said by jmn1207:

It doesn't make sense that this responsibility should fall onto the companies sending the data. They already paid for transit.

And the reason Netflix is doing deals directly with ISPs and creating their own CDN is that the CDNs they did business with, like Cogent, gave Netflix a real low price, but then couldn't deliver the goods at that price.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

said by batman :

And the reason Netflix is doing deals directly with ISPs and creating their own CDN is that the CDNs they did business with, like Cogent, gave Netflix a real low price, but then couldn't deliver the goods at that price.

No, Comcast and other major ISPs with a dominant market share and captive customer base wouldn't allow the goods to get through their gate without an unnecessary, double dipping, troll toll.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to Frink

Member

to Frink
Dealing with pretty much every Telco for major installs in the past I can certainly say that even if all they had to do was snap their fingers, it would take weeks to figure out just how to do it, plan it out, miss the deadline and then screw it up the first time to only be done right some days/weeks later.
Skippy25

Skippy25 to batman

Member

to batman
It doesnt matter who they go through or if they do it themselves. Until the big ISPs got to extortion money they will continue to play this game.

Just watch, in the future what will happen when a "contract dispute" over new peering terms arises it will result in your Netflix "channel" being pulled just as they do now.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9 to jmn1207

Premium Member

to jmn1207
You mean because Cogent and Level 3 didn't want to drop settlement-free peering?
openbox9

openbox9 to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
Luckily, there are often several routes around the Internet. The major ISPs tend to have more than one route so I doubt you'll need to worry about your Netflix "channel" being pulled, unless Netflix ties its own hands.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

You mean because Cogent and Level 3 didn't want to drop settlement-free peering?

Except that the congestion-until-paid business model is not happening around the globe in areas with competition. The way Comcast is handling things, it is anti-competitive and stifles innovation.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

Peering disputes occur around the globe. The way Netflix wants to handle things is anti-competitive and potentially stifles innovation.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

Comcast has all of the power to charge any streaming video service to reach Comcast's paying customers. No matter how successful any streaming video service might eventually become, they will always be required to pay a bounty to Comcast, so any competing services with Comcast will always be in a position where they have to give up a percentage of their success to Comcast. THIS is the situation that stifles innovation. THIS is the situation that is anti-competitive.

Netflix is attempting to find a competitive transit provider that can handle getting their data to these anti-competitive consumer ISPs? I don't see this as being the same, and Netflix is not having to pay money to other ISPs, just the large ones with market dominance. Seems odd that other ISPs aren't able to get away with what Comcast is able to get away with, and even Level 3 claims about 6 large ISPs are doing this, and not everywhere around the planet.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

said by jmn1207:

Netflix is attempting to find a competitive transit provider that can handle getting their data to these anti-competitive consumer ISPs?

I was referring to Netflix's "free" OpenConnect cache as the anti-competitive action. Now if only those transit providers and/or CDNs (whatever they want to be called) would fix their peering issues......
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
Agreed, right now.

But what happens in the future where NN has been bastardized so much that Netflix only has direct peering or the very little non-direct peering they have left gets bit starved by those ISPs as well when peering disputes happen.

Even now, if Comcast and Netflix have some big fight and Comcast pulls the plug on Netflix, where does that leave their millions of subscribers? It leaves them buffering, right where they were before they agreed to peer.

catchingup
@206.51.28.x

catchingup to batman

Anon

to batman
said by batman :

And the reason Netflix is doing deals directly with ISPs and creating their own CDN is that the CDNs they did business with, like Cogent, gave Netflix a real low price, but then couldn't deliver the goods at that price.

Cogent does NOT operate a CDN. People seem to be really confused by this.
catchingup

catchingup to openbox9

Anon

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

Luckily, there are often several routes around the Internet. The major ISPs tend to have more than one route so I doubt you'll need to worry about your Netflix "channel" being pulled, unless Netflix ties its own hands.

That is a black and white statement that is not always true.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

3 recommendations

openbox9 to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
What happens if "net neutrality" doesn't change and the Internet continues operating as it has since inception? Netflix can, gasp, always force its transit providers to uphold their agreements and do what needs to be done to deliver the bits.
openbox9

openbox9 to catchingup

Premium Member

to catchingup
I said "often" and "tend to" so I think my statement accounts for most situations. It wasn't meant to encompass every possible scenario on the Internet.
openbox9

openbox9 to catchingup

Premium Member

to catchingup
Technically correct, but it does colocate services and provide transit. What about another Netflix partner, Level 3?
ITGeeks
join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

ITGeeks to catchingup

Member

to catchingup
And generally it is.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

What happens if "net neutrality" doesn't change and the Internet continues operating as it has since inception? Netflix can, gasp, always force its transit providers to uphold their agreements and do what needs to be done to deliver the bits.

Netflix doesn't have the market dominance to force anything. There are plenty of competitive transit providers available for them to select, at least when compared to a US consumer's ISP choices; however, it makes little difference which transit provider Netflix uses, as any large ISP with market dominance can allow congestion to degrade the service. Netflix has only one real choice, and even then they are still getting dicked around. They have to give money to these ISPs or lose business. These ISPs don't have the same problem. If they piss off their paying customers, what the hell can their customers do about it?
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

said by jmn1207:

Netflix doesn't have the market dominance to force anything.

No dominance needed since I'm assuming they have contracts/agreements with their CDN and transit providers.
said by jmn1207:

however, it makes little difference which transit provider Netflix uses, as any large ISP with market dominance can allow congestion to degrade the service.

That's not Netflix's issue. That issue is for the transit providers to solve. Netflix should be poking its service providers, which it doesn't appear to be doing, at least publicly.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

said by openbox9:

That's not Netflix's issue. That issue is for the transit providers to solve. Netflix should be poking its service providers, which it doesn't appear to be doing, at least publicly.

It can't be fixed without paying double dipping money to a large ISP with market dominance. That is the problem. Charging at the edge when the ISP is also selling video should be a violation of net neutrality, but the entity that would otherwise regulate this is completely in the pockets of the violators. This hurts consumers.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 edit

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

said by jmn1207:

It can't be fixed without paying double dipping money to a large ISP with market dominance.

I truly don't understand this continued mantra of double-dipping. It's not double-dipping. Netflix pays a middle man to accept bits and pass them around the Internet. The middle man pays to connect to other middle men and/or end points to pass those bits off. Historically, those middle men have agreed to exchange bits at no cost because the exchange was mutually beneficial. That ideology is changing and now the rise of paid peering is coming about.

catchingup
@206.51.28.x

catchingup to openbox9

Anon

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

Technically correct, but it does colocate services and provide transit. What about another Netflix partner, Level 3?

It's just plain correct. You make it clear you don't know what CDN means or how they work. Mentioning co-location and transit is irrelevant.

Yes, Level 3 does operate a CDN service which they acquired from SAVVIS.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

You make it clear that you didn't read my comment. I agreed with you.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
It has already changed by the ISPs extorting money out of a content provider. So your hypothetical "staying the same" is already invalid.
Skippy25

Skippy25 to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
You are right it is not a Netfix problem. It is a problem for the ISP to fix by upgrading their network or making their subscribers use less data. How do you suppose they do that? Personally, I recommend raising prices or slowing actual speed sold so they can request less bits.
Skippy25

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
Because double dipping is exactly what it is. For an ISP that pretty much only request bits, it is the way their connections are sold to consumers, that is the way it still is and ALWAYS will be.

Why is this issue only an issue with what 6 ISPs in the entire world?

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

Historically, those middle men have agreed to exchange bits at no cost because the exchange was mutually beneficial. That ideology is changing and now the rise of paid peering is coming about.

Larger ISPs with little to no competition in the regions they have sliced out and serve, such as Comcast, have discovered that they can withhold access to their customers to extort content providers and bully global transit providers into paying them for a service that should already have been paid for by Comcast's customers. This hurts consumers and only helps Comcast, which already has way too much control in the market and is active seeking even more control. Comcast should be considered a customer to transit providers, not the other way around.

In one comment, you claim this is business as usual and it has always worked the way it does now with Comcast. Then you state in another that historically the middle men have agreed to exchange bits at no cost.

In the UK, and many other places throughout the world, if an ISP sees increased congestion, they use the money they collect from their paying customers to remedy the issue. Otherwise, the customers will choose a different ISP that is taking care of their paying customers. Links to reports have been posted many times in our various discussions showing that congestion does not occur at anything close to the same level in these regions where competition exists.

Your position in this matter is decidedly for those conglomerate ISPs that enjoy market dominance and spend an embarrassing amount of money to ensure that no competition can impede on their march toward monopolistic control.

I maintain that the current change in ideology, as you put it, is damaging innovation and ultimately hurting the consumers.
« Cant always apply
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from So have they signed an agreement or not?