guppy_fish Premium Member join:2003-12-09 Palm Harbor, FL |
to serge87
Re: Is gaming fixed w/o Netflix traffic on peers?said by serge87:I assume your stance is that Verizon is always right, and your answer to quality deterioration of your FIOS connection is tough shit? How's that working for ya? I have never had connections issue with my FIOS line, then again I don't use Netflix for there subpar highly compressed video and I don't game. You seem to get hot under the collar when people like me simply offer a logical, not emotional view of the issue, its business, nothing more or less. There isn't another option around that offers the performance FIOS has, and for my usage, which is work out of the house 7 days a week, its be near flawless. I have dropped my phone and just about all Video due to costs, but that's a separate issue. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Off topic hidden : Off topic
|
2 recommendations |
Re: Is gaming fixed w/o Netflix traffic on peers?Gaming problems still exit then? That's inexcusable.
We've now verified Verizon's claim that Netflix was destroying the Internet was false. Even after Netflix traffic was moved to Verizon's network our Internet access still has significant problems.
This "Cogent and L3 got into a peering" argument is weak. That was for transit. Verizon isn't offering transit. Verizon is largely a subscriber. |
|
1 recommendation |
said by nothing00:We've now verified Verizon's claim that Netflix was destroying the Internet was false. Even after Netflix traffic was moved to Verizon's network our Internet access still has significant problems.
This "Cogent and L3 got into a peering" argument is weak. That was for transit. Verizon isn't offering transit. Verizon is largely a subscriber. The funny thing is the situation with Netflix wasn't a one-off fluke, Verizon has these same problems with many others in the industry. They just don't get as much attention or coverage as the whole deal with Netflix did. Down to the core issue is that Verizon has the ability to improve customer's internet experiences and they fail to do so. |
|
|
to nothing00
I'm not sure you understand how settlement free peering and transit work. Verizon offers this as public info, in fact most companies define settlement free peering. » www.verizonenterprise.co ··· peering/Traffic Exchange Ratio. The ratio of the aggregate amount of traffic exchanged between the Requester and the Verizon Business Internet Network with which it seeks to interconnect shall be roughly balanced and shall not exceed 1.8:1. If you exceed that balance, then even you would agree that the company exceeding the balance is in breech, and would have to seek alternate accomodations, IE buy some transit. |
|
hubrisnxs |
to serge87
yes serge, many companies over subscribe their bandwidth.
that's tried and true since the birth of the internet.
Netflix wasn't the only offender. and even Netflix agreed that A) Verizon wasn't throttling (so says Netflix CEO) B) that the onus was on them to make alternate agreements, hence why they signed a direct peering agreement, and fired their inadequate previous providers.
It's not like they are paying more, they are just paying someone else.
I Think that fact gets lost in a lot of the emotion on this subject. |
|
1 edit
1 recommendation |
said by hubrisnxs:yes serge, many companies over subscribe their bandwidth.
that's tried and true since the birth of the internet. It's true that's how it always worked but unfortunately the Internet is no longer light-web-browsing-2002 anymore and ISPs can't stay stuck in the past when bandwidth consumption is increasing by astronomical numbers. I understand transit providers reaching limits with Verizon but Tier 1 networks like Level3(et al) that peer with Verizon provide as much value to Verizon and its customers as the other way around. They both need each other otherwise it would be a boring Internet as a Verizon customer. I think many on here accept a very defeatist outlook of "this is how it's always been and this is how it will always be, ho hum" and humbly continue to pay out the nose to Verizon. |
|
|
Well I understand where you're going, and that's a legitimate argument to be had. But you haven't been propositioning it as that. You've been propositioning it absent that outlook, and simply saying it's Verizon's fault and Verizon should fix it.
I don't go by "that's how it's always been" I go by "what's fair" and "what if I was level 3 or Verizon, and what would I expect"
Guess what. If I were Verizon, I wouldn't expect to give free rides based on preferential treatment to one company or another simply because they are "big"
I'd look at the scenario, and say "hey, we have a service offering that would help you, here's what I charge for that"
When Unicef gets in the Telcom and Internet Game, then maybe level 3 will get some of that sweet Louisiana free bandwidth that's out there (I'm just kidding), but until then, even THEY agree, that if you're outside of the settlement free peering ratio's, that at some point that is perceived as abusing your business relationship, and at some point, you might be asked to increase your bandwidth or buy actual transit.
Level 3 does the very same thing to every other company on the planet.
just my .02 cents |
|
|
said by hubrisnxs:Well I understand where you're going, and that's a legitimate argument to be had. But you haven't been propositioning it as that. You've been propositioning it absent that outlook, and simply saying it's Verizon's fault and Verizon should fix it.
I don't go by "that's how it's always been" I go by "what's fair" and "what if I was level 3 or Verizon, and what would I expect"
Guess what. If I were Verizon, I wouldn't expect to give free rides based on preferential treatment to one company or another simply because they are "big"
I'd look at the scenario, and say "hey, we have a service offering that would help you, here's what I charge for that"
When Unicef gets in the Telcom and Internet Game, then maybe level 3 will get some of that sweet Louisiana free bandwidth that's out there (I'm just kidding), but until then, even THEY agree, that if you're outside of the settlement free peering ratio's, that at some point that is perceived as abusing your business relationship, and at some point, you might be asked to increase your bandwidth or buy actual transit.
Level 3 does the very same thing to every other company on the planet.
just my .02 cents So, in summary as a FIOS customer you can pound sand for all that Verizon is concerned. I mean there's not much we consumers can do as we lack leverage to get both sides to come to any sort of agreement. If only there was some government body that regulated telecommunications on behalf of the public. |
|
|
to hubrisnxs
said by hubrisnxs:If you exceed that balance, then even you would agree that the company exceeding the balance is in breech, and would have to seek alternate accomodations, IE buy some transit. Verizon isn't selling transit. They're selling access to millions of customers. Verizon is in reality a subscriber who isn't offering enough value/content to the rest of the world which is why their "peering" ratio is out of whack. Yes, indeed, they should be paying L3/Cogent/etc. |
|
|
Verizon is a tier I isp. It's simply a ridiculous statement to say they aren't selling transit. That's exactly what they are doing with various companies. Apple Microsoft netflix Level 3 telia tinet and probably hundreds of different isps. |
|
|
|
to nothing00
The discussion changes a bit when it centers closer to reality. Some folks make the mistake of thinking Verizon (everything), when it should be Verizon (alternet transit) and Verizon (FiOS last mile). Another way to look at the reality is to look at the history of the congestion. Where did the congestion occur? or better, how was it fixed? Netflix is not coming in to last mile devices. In my traceeroutes these are identified with .verizon-gni.net device names. Netflix is connected to transit provider alternet. The name Verizon is an umbrella for multiple divisions with (sometimes) separate goals. You could also have peace and harmony by having last mile subscribers pay for their transit. |
|
1 recommendation |
to hubrisnxs
said by hubrisnxs:It's simply a ridiculous statement to say they aren't selling transit. Hardly. Verizon, as a tier-1 ISP, is not offering enough content to balance out their peering relationships. And because of their lack of tier-1 ISP customers they are trying to get others to pay them for their failure. Big Verizon has decided that they are going to hide their residential ISP behind their tier-1 ISP service. The only way to get acceptable performance to their residential ISP service is through their tier-1 service. (But wait, I thought people said these divisions were completely separate?!) That's not transit. By doing this (no significant tier-1 content providers, huge residential traffic imbalance, requiring usage of their tier-1 to reach residential subscribers) they've turned all of their internet services into a residential subscriber based system. There are legal lines but they've erased them from a practical perspective. They've engineered all of this in an effort to try and get everyone everywhere to pay them. It's bologna and needs to be seen for what it really is. |
|
1 recommendation |
That displays a monumental lack of understanding of not only how the Internet works but also peering and transit in general. I don't fault you for that. But good god almighty. |
|
|
Not really. I welcome you to explain how Verizon's market distorting practices are in fact normal. Tell us how it's legitimate to hide your residential ISP behind your tier-1 service and not serve your residential ISP customers the data they requested. And the only magic solution is for someone else to start paying some other Verizon company to fix it. Stick to that topic.
Don't try to educate me about "peer ratios" and other garbage. That's all contractual nonsense that can be rewritten at any time for the benefit of both parties. Verizon is manipulating and distorting the metrics to claim that they're the ones not violating the agreement.
You've simply fallen for the smoke and mirror story Verizon wants you to believe. Like they're some sort of underdog... |
|
PJL join:2008-07-24 Long Beach, CA |
PJL
Member
2014-Oct-10 1:07 pm
said by nothing00:Don't try to educate me about "peer ratios" and other garbage. That's all contractual nonsense that can be rewritten at any time for the benefit of both parties. Verizon is manipulating and distorting the metrics to claim that they're the ones not violating the agreement. I will not argue with you, but I do think you fail to appreciate that contractual "nonsense" (your word) is what the business world (interaction between businesses) and free enterprise is based on. If Verizon was truly violating the terms and conditions of a contract, then L3 (or any other provider) would be clearly making that claim, in writing, and in the press -- and taking Verizon to court as the result of the contractual violation. But that claim is never made and no law suits for breach of contract have been filed. We only see marketing press releases and internal blog posts pointing the finger at Verizon. We don't see any legal finger pointing. That, to me, is very revealing. |
|
|
Examining (actually surmising) what's in the contracts is pointless. That's why, for our purposes here, they're nonsense. Doing that puts us back at looking at the bark on the trees instead of understanding and appreciating what's going on in the forest. The contracts are more or less immaterial to the overall conduct that they're engaged in.
Verizon, due to market size, can and has engineered themselves out of their peering agreement. They've put themselves in a position where historically valid peering agreements are impossible.
Even the people who support Verizon acknowledge this with comments like "bye bye to the middleman" and such. |
|
rebus9 join:2002-03-26 Tampa Bay
1 recommendation |
to dodgetech2
said by dodgetech2:Netflix traffic should have no impact on your gaming unless you're gaming on the Netflix server Umm... if the gaming server was reached through the same peer(s) as Netlifx was reached, then it absolutely would have a potential impact. Unless of course those peers are still saturated even without Netflix traffic. |
|
1 recommendation |
said by rebus9:Unless of course those peers are still saturated even without Netflix traffic. That is most likely true... |
|
1 recommendation |
to rebus9
said by rebus9:Unless of course those peers are still saturated even without Netflix traffic. Apparently they are (or Verizon is doing something underhanded here). Whenever I play on Valve's game servers there's a good chance I'll be going through Level 3. Off-peak times are fantastic with single-digit latency and no loss whatsoever. Peak times can get as bad as this (tonight):
ANY packet loss is unacceptable for a service provider let alone nearly 50%! You think Verizon will understand if 50% of my bill payment doesn't make it to them? Losing stuff is no big deal right?
|
|
plat2on1 join:2002-08-21 Hopewell Junction, NY |
said by Dissonance:said by rebus9:Unless of course those peers are still saturated even without Netflix traffic. Apparently they are (or Verizon is doing something underhanded here). Whenever I play on Valve's game servers there's a good chance I'll be going through Level 3. Off-peak times are fantastic with single-digit latency and no loss whatsoever. Peak times can get as bad as this (tonight): ANY packet loss is unacceptable for a service provider let alone nearly 50%! You think Verizon will understand if 50% of my bill payment doesn't make it to them? Losing stuff is no big deal right? think what you have there is a Valve issue, US east has been shitting it self for a bit now |
|
guppy_fish Premium Member join:2003-12-09 Palm Harbor, FL |
to Dissonance
L3 still handles allot of NetFlix traffic to other tier 2 ISP's.
Show the trace where it is Verizon network being the issue ... with all this direct peering, its almost a certainty L3 is the issue. As for the path, that's Valve's choice. L3 still handles allot of NetFlix traffic to other tier 2 ISP's |
|
|
to nothing00
Whenever I play on Valve's game servers there's a good chance I'll be going through Level 3. Off-peak times are fantastic with single-digit latency and no loss whatsoever. Peak times can get as bad as this I wonder if people even read what they write.... This is a pretty clear indicator where the problem is. |
|
1 recommendation |
said by hubrisnxs:I wonder if people even read what they write....
This is a pretty clear indicator where the problem is. I should mention that I can connect to these same servers via Optimum/Cablevision over a nearly identical path (after hitting L3's network) with zero packet loss. |
|
1 recommendation |
traceroutes don't show packet loss, and they also don't show you where a problem IS, they only show you where a problem ISN'T. How are you measuring packet loss, and do you want to share the results?
I'd recommend using Win MTR.
ALSO that information would only be meaningful, IF you could use a VPN AND if you could guarantee that the traffic came from the same path and server but that somehow a VPN made it look different. So If you could VPN to the same server you were getting the streaming from, using exactly the same path and then it behaves better, that would be pretty conclusive proof.
With using a different provider, you change both the forward and reverse path dramatically and that skews the type of conclusion you've come to |
|
2 recommendations |
Sorry if my frustration is getting the best of me here, lol. I can't say with 100% certainty that the peering point is the problem, but here's what makes me think it is:
- Most Valve games have a developer console that can be enabled to show network statistics including packet loss. I use this to monitor packet loss while connected to Valve's game servers (image of this in an earlier post).
- I've seen the same loss on both my home and work Fios connections (which leave Verizon and hit L3 at the same point).
- I also have access to an Optimum/Cablevision connection that connects to these same servers without packet loss.
- A traceroute obviously shows different paths to peering points on each provider, but after that the paths over L3's network are identical.
I can't say anything conclusively (especially since I can't see a return path), but it sure looks to me like Verizon/L3 is the problem here. |
|
Smith6612 MVM join:2008-02-01 North Tonawanda, NY ·Charter Ubee EU2251 Ubiquiti UAP-IW-HD Ubiquiti UniFi AP-AC-HD
|
to plat2on1
said by plat2on1:think what you have there is a Valve issue, US east has been shitting it self for a bit now +1 . While my DSL has been having some bad packet loss issues lately, the competitive servers have been awful the past few weeks in the Northeast. I say that because I've been in numerous competitive games where everyone was initially playing with 20-50ms ping. Give it 5 minutes, and hit detection is screwed, with everyone holding 400ms ping. |
|
|
said by Smith6612:said by plat2on1:think what you have there is a Valve issue, US east has been shitting it self for a bit now +1 . While my DSL has been having some bad packet loss issues lately, the competitive servers have been awful the past few weeks in the Northeast. I say that because I've been in numerous competitive games where everyone was initially playing with 20-50ms ping. Give it 5 minutes, and hit detection is screwed, with everyone holding 400ms ping. That's usually a DDOS attack (which is another crappy problem that can't really be helped). |
|
3 recommendations |
to Dissonance
said by Dissonance:ge of this in an earlier post).
- I've seen the same loss on both my home and work Fios connections (which leave Verizon and hit L3 at the same point).
- I also have access to an Optimum/Cablevision connection that connects to these same servers without packet loss. If you're lucky to have access to an alternative ISP besides Verizon and it has no issues(unlike on your FIOS connection), then I'd go for it. There is nothing that Verizon can or will do so vote with your wallet |
|