  Killa200
Premium Member
join:2005-12-02
Southeast TN |
Killa200
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 11:10 am
PeeringShould Netflix have to pay ATT to peer with them if that is what the two want to do? Yes, Netflix has a very one sided traffic load being that it is a content provider, so that imbalance has to be made up for in cost since it cannot do so in peering balance. Besides, the addition of new peers mean their original peers now see less traffic, eventually leading to less cost to netflix at renegotiation for those old peers.
Should ATT be paying to increase peering traffic to Cogent and Level 3 if those links are at capacity, no matter why that may be? That is also a yes, either by means of handshake agreements to increase two way traffic capacity, or by means of cash if the increase causes in unbalance in the favor of one or the other.
Folks, both options and answers are right, they are just different circumstances.
Should i drive my car to work or take public transportation? Both are correct ways to get to work, they just both have a different means to do. I can either pay for gas and pay attention to get to work on my own, or pay up to a middle man to get me to where i want to go. | |
|
 |  MDAAuto negotiating
Premium Member
join:2013-09-10
Minneapolis, MN ·Xfinity
ARRIS TM722G
Asus RT-AC68
Switches Trash Bin
|
MDA
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 11:37 am
Re: PeeringThe problem is that the nature of the internet is someone requesting a distant service from which they have already paid the distant service (Netflix) and also paid the local service (their ISP) and not getting the service that is predefined from both. In that aspect, it's like paying AT&T for gas money when it should already be included in the service price (double dipping).
Now I see where your reasoning lies that it has to do with the fact that one must pay up at this certain situation, but the other should also be responsible for maintaining their own network to keep up with the demand (which comes from the paying customer).
In the end, services like Netflix and webhosts like Google are digging up the ancient problem that the ISPs are just plain stubborn to keep their network in tiptop shape when they are blinded by the profits when the infrastructure that got them those profits is lacking (an immature business model). It all gets dumped on the services and webhosts (and customers).
That's just sad and unacceptable when they should've been doing their job in the first place. | |
|
| | | |
Slagish
Anon
2014-Mar-30 6:13 am
Re: PeeringThis stuff keeps getting even more ridiculous. We, the consumer pay for this service, not that content provider, so why should they pay for your over sold network. | |
|
| | |
to Killa200
Netflix simply delivers the bits that consumers of AT&T have requested. Until that time, not a single Netflix bit attempts to enter their network. It is all just like this website does as does the millions of other "services" out there. So it is AT&T ISP customers that are requesting the data and thus congesting AT&T's network, not Netflix.
If AT&T does not like the way their customers are using their network and thus causing them to have to invest to keep up then I guess they need to address that with their consumers. Bottom line is that the consumers of AT&T are paying them for internet access and how they use that is up to the consumer, not AT&T. If AT&T's network can't handle the load their own subscribers are putting on their network then they have 3 options: 1.) Invest in their network 2.) Reduce their number of subscriber, thus reducing the amount of data being requested 3.) Reduce the amount of data their subscribers can request by limiting their speed and/or utilizing caps.
How they do number 2 is up to them. They can raise rates to cause some to switch providers, but being there is limited choices this may not work well. They can do nothing and just let users get sick of poor service and go elsewhere. But again, with limited choices this may not help. #3 may cause some to switch as well but again with limited choices it may not have the desire effect. Wait, I think I see a pattern here... the ultimate problem appears to be a competition one, which regulations should address. | |
|
| | | |
Sprintguy
Anon
2014-Mar-26 9:02 pm
Re: PeeringGeez, you should could cause a few high blood pressure issues at AT&T with your view. Good job and SPOT ON! | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 9:38 pm
Re: PeeringThat's because it's the truth, the facts, and is common sense, so yeah, you're right about blood pressure with at&t management since they aren't interested in any of those things. | |
|
| | |
to Killa200
To me, it seems like the customer has paid you to take a taxi to work and you took a bus and put the difference in your pocket. | |
|
|  PhoenixDownFIOS is Awesome
Premium Member
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 |
to Killa200
Cogent and Level 3 should be ponying up the money for the increased peering capacity. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Peeringsaid by PhoenixDown:Cogent and Level 3 should be ponying up the money for the increased peering capacity. Is that sarcasm? If not, could you explain? | |
|
| | | |
to PhoenixDown
Why would backbone providers pay to increase the capacity of their customers (AT&T, Comcast, etc.)? It is not the backbone providers causing the issue, it is the subscribers of their customers.
Maybe the backbone providers should tell AT&T their consumers are using too much data and not peer with them at all. Then where would AT&T be? They would be AOL without actual Internet. | |
|
| | | |
to PhoenixDown
Ok..
Your wife requests that you buy milk. You go get the milk. Who paid ?
You paid... not your wife right ? Did the place where you purchased the milk have to pay you for driving to their location to buy the milk?
Just saying. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: PeeringBad analogy. Better one is go to the store, buy the milk and out of the shadows, the delivery truck driver says for you to get what you paid for, he needs a few bucks too. Because, well, he's bigger than you and can stop you from taking the milk. | |
|
| | |
to Killa200
No.
AT&T should be either a: paying netflix for making AT&T valuable, or b: paying for the damn hardware that they are responsible for. | |
|
| Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT |
to Killa200
I pay for electricity. I also pay for cable. The cable boxes use electricity, which puts more demand on the power grid, which in turn costs the electric company money to maintain. Should my electric company have the right to demand extra payment from the cable company for each box it places in its subscribers' homes?
If your answer is "no", please explain how that would be any different than AT&T wanting more money from Netflix. | |
|
| |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT |
Simba7
Member
2014-Mar-26 10:14 pm
Re: PeeringSo, you're with an ISP that only has a single OC3 for *ALL* of their customers. The ISP offer 10mbps access to 100-some customers.
Is it the content providers fault for your ISP being an idiot and cheaping out on its network infrastructure? | |
|
| | | PhoenixDownFIOS is Awesome
Premium Member
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 |
Re: PeeringAn ISP with a single OC3 wouldn't be in a settlement free peering arrangement with other providers... | |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 |
morbo
Member
2014-Mar-26 11:40 am
Reporters aren't doing their jobsI'm glad you bring this up as it's difficult when reporters, whose job it is to ask the tough questions, are not doing any critical thinking or questioning. Parroting the AT&T talking points isn't reporting. | |
|
| | |
Re: Reporters aren't doing their jobsKeep in mind many of these reporters work for corporations also affiliated in some way with these companies. | |
|
|  fg8578
join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR |
to morbo
said by morbo:I'm glad you bring this up as it's difficult when reporters, whose job it is to ask the tough questions, are not doing any critical thinking or questioning. Parroting the AT&T talking points isn't reporting. It's possible the reporters don't know enough about the technological issues involved to ask the right questions. I've sat through many a presentation, not following along, when at the end the presenter asks, "any questions?" And not getting any questions, assumed everyone understood, when in fact the opposite was the case. It's very possible the same thing is happening here, although you would hope some of the tech media types would know enough to ask. | |
|
| |
...It seems at&t doesn't want to be an ISP - why don't they sell that part of their business - so we can end their incessant whining. | |
|
 David
VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:102 |
David
VIP
2014-Mar-26 1:21 pm
I guess I find netflix's position(s) interesting.1.) Ever since they switched off of akamai (sp?) these problems started happening. Maybe buying transit from cogent and level3 and switching off akamai wasn't a bright idea?
2.) So finally we bypass cogent and pay comcast directly for peering but at the same time they complain about paying for peering? I am still scratching my head on this one. (link yesterday)
3.) if I always semi-understood peering correctly if you were not 1:1 for traffic you always compensated the other party or "transit peering", exactly how did that change? If you are sending me a exaflood of traffic and I can't send you the same exaflood back shouldn't you be paying me for the undue network strain? That's the way I always understood it with peering. | |
|
| Killa200
Premium Member
join:2005-12-02
Southeast TN |
Killa200
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 1:38 pm
Re: I guess I find netflix's position(s) interesting.said by David:3.) if I always semi-understood peering correctly if you were not 1:1 for traffic you always compensated the other party or "transit peering", exactly how did that change? If you are sending me a exaflood of traffic and I can't send you the same exaflood back shouldn't you be paying me for the undue network strain? That's the way I always understood it with peering. And that is essentially how peering is setup to work. If we are peering to reduce hops or spread load and both providers will be seeing a load shift and advantage, we call it even for the good of network enhancement for both of us. If your peering to get more transit or transit closer to your destination and are buying enough to need to use peering agreements, but your agreement has no other means of payment such as a traffic advantage for the other party, then you pay in cash. The problem is peering is over most reporter's heads apparently, so they just twist the issue to make a story out of it. To me both companies are at fault. ATT for saturating, and Netflix for taking this long to work something out with providers for direct peering after they got as large as they are. | |
|
|  mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20
kudos:18 |
to David
said by David:2.) So finally we bypass cogent and pay comcast directly for peering but at the same time they complain about paying for peering? I am still scratching my head on this one. (link yesterday) CC was reasonable and is charging about what Cogent was charging and so it was a no-brainer to add them as a provider. With the phone companies charging considerably more (some are claiming 10x more) in addition to forcing NF to bring the data to them, of course they are balking. said by David:3.) if I always semi-understood peering correctly if you were not 1:1 for traffic you always compensated the other party or "transit peering", exactly how did that change? The problem is it DIDN'T change. That worked when there was a clear separation between backbone providers and ISPs and end users had really slow connections compared to servers. Now, with the backbone providers also being ISPs providing high speed connections to end users it is impossible for their traffic to ever be balanced; they will always be receiving WAY more data then they transmit. /M | |
|
| | | |
Re: I guess I find netflix's position(s) interesting.quote:
CC was reasonable and is charging about what Cogent was charging and so it was a no-brainer to add them as a provider. With the phone companies charging considerably more (some are claiming 10x more) in addition to forcing NF to bring the data to them, of course they are balking.
And it's fair to argue that Comcast was only being reasonable because they want antitrust regulators to see that they're nice corporate citizens and approve the Time Warner Cable merger. There's no pressure of that kind for AT&T and Verizon, or for Comcast once the deal's approved. | |
|
| mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20
kudos:18 |
to David
said by David:If you are sending me a exaflood of traffic and I can't send you the same exaflood back shouldn't you be paying me for the undue network strain? Aw man, my router says AT&T sent me 140GB last month but I only sent them 4GB. I think AT&T should be paying me due to them unbalancing the connection like that. /M | |
|
| | David
VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:102 |
David
VIP
2014-Mar-26 2:15 pm
Re: I guess I find netflix's position(s) interesting.said by mackey:Aw man, my router says AT&T sent me 140GB last month but I only sent them 4GB. I think AT&T should be paying me due to them unbalancing the connection like that.
/M As a subscriber I am not sure if you would get away with that arguement. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: I guess I find netflix's position(s) interesting.I think he was being sarcastic and pointing out that there will always be and always have been a load "unbalance". Think about it, most ISPs have lots of downstream bandwidth for their users but shitty upstream bandwidth. How in the hell is that ever going to balance out ever? It aint. | |
|
| | | | David
VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:102 |
David
VIP
2014-Mar-26 3:45 pm
Re: I guess I find netflix's position(s) interesting.said by sandman_1:I think he was being sarcastic and pointing out that there will always be and always have been a load "unbalance". Think about it, most ISPs have lots of downstream bandwidth for their users but shitty upstream bandwidth. How in the hell is that ever going to balance out ever? It aint. ok, lmao... I guess my sarcasm detector isn't working... hold on... must reboot sarcasm detector...  | |
|
| | |
to David
You would be understanding it incorrectly. If your assumption was correct ISP's would never have anyone to connect to because backbone providers would not pay them to carry the ISP's customers traffic to them.
By nature the internet if very much download intensive thus a residential ISP having a 1:1 relationship or even coming close to that with a backbone provider is zilch. Which is why THEY pay them to actually connect to the internet allowing their subscribers to be a part of it. | |
|
| David
VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:102 |
David
VIP
2014-Mar-27 9:14 pm
4.) If traffic loading was a problem to a direct ISP (AT&T, comcast, sonic.net, google, etc..) couldn't netflix just buy several peer providers and essentially mitigate the traffic amongst them all? I would imagine this can't be too hard to accomplish if I can essentially do it with a dual-wan router for my purposes. | |
|
 StuartMWWho Is John Galt?
Premium Member
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:3 |
StuartMW
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 1:30 pm
I promise...I promise that as long as there is an alternative I will never use any AT&T service. I learned a long time ago that they're not to be trusted--with anything. | |
|
|
•••• |
 davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN
kudos:1 ·TDS
|
Let AT&T block NetflixThere's a Simple Solution to this problem.
Let one of two things happen.
1. AT&T blocks their costumers from being able to get to Netflix.
Or
2. Netflix doesn't route content to AT&T customers (Netflix Configuration).
Let's see how fast ATT looses customers.
Over-simplified, but something needs to happen here. AT&T simply hasn't reinvested money into their existing networks, and are paying the price. | |
|
| | |
Re: Let AT&T block NetflixIn a competitive market you may be right, AT&T would lose them quickly.
However, being that a vast majority of the country does not have a competitive market for someone to change to and not get the same "screwing" this simply would not happen. | |
|
| |
Stop monetizing data usage...I suggest eliminating the monetizing of data usage and just charge for the access to data pipes. I know wishful thinking in the age of corporate fascism.
I'm tired of these corporations pissin and moaning about not making enough money and having to charge for data.
AT&T is the worst.. You want money?? plant all fiber and dig up your copper and sell it back to recyclers.. How many tons of copper are planted in the ground that they can cash in on and replace it with cheaper fiber?? Plus they can also cut down on the power they have to send down the line to the customer's homes. It's like around 70-90VDC.
It's too bad that the general public has been too dumbed down to call them out on this and tell them to go `F' themselves. | |
|
| openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
Springfield, VA
kudos:2 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 7:27 pm
Re: Stop monetizing data usage...Data transferred will be monetized until the "next thing" comes along. Data transferred is no different than what talk time used to be. A "quantity" will always exist to facilitate charging premium prices for big consumers. | |
|
| |
wizardry
Anon
2014-Mar-26 2:25 pm
redux ad nauseumConstant peering problems are a symptom of the dearth of competition in the broadband market. The lack of competition is a symptom of rent seeking facilitated by our broken campaign finance system. | |
|
| openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
Springfield, VA
kudos:2 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 7:31 pm
Re: redux ad nauseumsaid by wizardry :Constant peering problems are a symptom of the dearth of competition in the broadband market. There's no shortage of network owners/operators to peer amongst each other. I don't see a linkage between the minimally competitive last mile consumer and peering arrangements between network owners/operators. | |
|
dra6o0n
join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON |
If this doesn't scream corruptionThen I don't know what does. | |
|
 dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
kudos:1 |
dnoyeB
Member
2014-Mar-26 3:48 pm
That'd be like me paying USPOSo packaging shipping is kind of the reverse because its paid by the originator and not the receiver. Nevertheless, its only paid by one side. Not both sides!
I'm not going to pay Amazon for shipping a package to my house, then pay again when the postman arrives...
The only way ATT could get this is somehow by government regulating it into being. Too many big content providers I think to allow that to happen. Though mostly Netflix is making the noise, HBO better start because its future lies along side Netflix eventually. | |
|
| RJW1678
join:2003-01-15
Wilmington, DE
1 edit |
Re: That'd be like me paying USPOI agree.
Later,
Bob W | |
|
| |
Cry BabyThat infant is a terrible actor, where are the tears, the red eyes and the runny, snot gushing nose?! | |
|
|  SeleniaGentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
kudos:3 |
Selenia
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 8:58 pm
Re: Cry BabyI think it is appropriate lol. I mean we are talking about AT&T, who has always been a terrible actor. | |
|
 pende_tim
Premium Member
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ
kudos:1
·Xfinity
|
Easily Solved with CDNIt would be very easy for AT&T to solve this peering cost thing if they wanted to: » signup.netflix.com/openconnect . Netflix will provide a storage box for the ISP to connect to their side of the network so a movie only has to make the transit from Cognet or L3 once. As I understand it the hardware is free, all the ISP must do is power it and cool it. However if they went that route, then there would be no reason to try and extort money from Netflix. | |
|
|
••• |
| |
Greed, is good.......
.......until it kills the goose that lays the golden egg.
Obviously Randall Stephenson doesn't get it.
But then again that is what you get when a company is publicly traded.
Short term thinking, looking for quick profits,
at the expense of the long term health of the company,
and the satisfaction of their customers that pay brass tacks and shareholders.
| |
|
| openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
Springfield, VA
kudos:2 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 7:37 pm
Re: Greed, is good.......said by 63475675:But then again that is what you get when a company is publicly traded.
Short term thinking, looking for quick profits,
at the expense of the long term health of the company Nope. We want short, mid-, and long-term profits. Investors absolutely care about the viability of a company. | |
|
| WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC |
to 63475675
He came from accounting/finance all he knows is spreadsheets.
What changed for ISPs was video. When it was just e-mails and web pages the up and down data was more balanced. Set pricing also worked because how much data could you use with e-mail and static web sites. AT&T and Verizon are not going to be happy until they get a set fee for the connection and then charge for usage just like they do for wireless.
I don't know if Netflex has set up multiple data centers like Google did or not. The ISPs look at it as if the Netflixes make all the money by showing someone else work while the ISPs do the heaving lifting building and maintaining a network. Either the customer or the video content businesses will pay more. | |
|
| |
ReallyWouldnt want to cut into that $18Billion profit they made in 2013 | |
|
 Loker
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Fargo, ND |
Loker
Premium Member
2014-Mar-26 7:50 pm
Well...While I hate to see my media streaming suffer, I would imagine Netflix given its size should be able to decline any cost sharing. Let the chips fall where they may, then have a blerb on the site stating that "While we work hard to provide you with the best service possible. However, we can not control variables outside of our facilities. Please contact your ISP's support team to try and rectify connectivity issues."
I imagine it would be at least a tiny increase on the tech support budget for AT&T and the gang. . . | |
|
 ·ooma
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
|
decades later..in a few decades, Google won't have to be beholden to other ISPs... they will have sufficient network plant to become a major player in the ISP direct to consumer market...
for fractions of 1/1000000th the direct or indirect subsidies the major Telco & Cableco players had or continue to enjoy courtesy of taxpayers. that is, WHEN the public interest is so badly damaged by incumbents that they will jettison over 100 years of Telco rule and combined 40 years of Cableco domination of video & residential internet as god gifted incumbencies.
However, I'm no fool.. that's a HUGE "IF", not when at this point... | |
|
houghe9
join:2008-02-27
Lexington Park, MD
2 edits |
houghe9
Member
2014-Mar-26 10:02 pm
hey do you guys rememberdo you guys remember that little thing called p2p you know when users got little pieces of data from thousands of users at the same time? there was a cry 'illegal data downloads are saturating our network clogging the pipes screwing it up for everyone!' then came the numerous tools that posted things like 'nobody needs that much data I mean how many linux distros and video game updates do you really need? caps are ok because nobody needs that much data!' if people werent doing illeagal downloading the dangerous fly by night companies like verizon and att and comcast would not be able to keep thier businesses afloat. you see they have the capacity to service normal LEGAL Internet traffic.
ok riaa wins we are now paying for our content through services like...Netflix, so...why are there issues with traffic our ISPs told us it was the p2p not thier network. now they want help paying for all of that data....
they could not charge tolls to p2p...they can charge tolls to google Netflix and anyone else they want. as consumers we are the little guy we enter into what we think is a fair bargain "unlimited" thier word, Internet for legal usage at a given set price. they are not honoring that bargain. the little people are getting screwed.
there is no argument for them. they are screwing the little people. the least they could do is give us a kiss.
there business practices are indefensible. we paid through are taxes for thier infrastructure. government involvement is always lose lose for both sides. but at this point its it's just lose for the little people. now i just want the government to come in and say honor your bargain. i dont care if they ever put another dime into upgrades or anything else. give us what we paid and pay for. there is no thing such as customer appreciation. there is no pride from the giant corps in the satasifaction and brand loyalty. all of us would jump ship in a minute for google fiber. and now I love google and if I ever get the chance to have google fiber I will pay them any amount of money just to say screw you to Comcast AT&T Verizon for the way I and everyone I know has been treated. | |
|
| |
WTH?The customer is already paying to access the network which att connects to other networks so that the ATT customer can access sites and services on those other networks, you know ATT execs like how the WWW works..
Since the ATT customer already paid for the rented ATT data and bandwidth they can request data from Netflix with their paid from bandwidth/data transer, what part to that doesn't ATT understand.
Someone should ask the ATT exec it they would be ok that Netflix charging ATT for every ATT customer that access the Netflix servers and uses the Netflix bandwidth which is sent over the Netflix rented network access. | |
|
| |
Boo hoo! Cry me a river!Poor AT&T! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
·
