Level3: Verizon Intentionally Causing Netflix Congestion Thursday Jul 17 2014 17:56 EDT Tipped by twizlar While ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T claim that the latest round of peering and interconnection fights (and poor Netflix performance) are just peering business as usual, Netflix and transit operators continue to accuse ISPs of anti-competitive shenanigans. Level 3 last May proclaimed that six of the largest ISPs were intentionally creating points of "permanent congestion" by refusing to upgrade their side of transit-operator facing connection links -- only resolved through direct interconnection payments to ISPs. Verizon recently denied any wrong doing in a blog post, insisting that they'd done an internal review of their network and found absolutely no congestion. To hear Verizon tell it, the streaming problems plaguing only the customers of certain ISPs are Netflix's fault for intentionally choosing poor transit providers. In a blog post today, Level3 VP of Content and Media Mark Taylor says Verizon's recent denial (and Verizon's handy infographic, above) actually proves that they're intentionally throttling connections. Verizon's infographic shows a red bar where companies like Level3 and Verizon connect to exchange traffic requested by Verizon customers. Taylor points out that Level3 has ample bandwidth on their end of that equation, and -- as mirrored in earlier posts -- accuses Verizon of failing to upgrade capacity on their end of that connection -- intentionally. Level3 uses the Los Angeles interconnection point in Verizon's example to make their case: quote: All of the Verizon FiOS customers in Southern California likely get some of their content through this interconnection location. It is in a single building. And boils down to a router Level 3 owns, a router Verizon owns and four 10Gbps Ethernet ports on each router. A small cable runs between each of those ports to connect them together. This diagram is far simpler than the Verizon diagram and shows exactly where the congestion exists.Verizon has confirmed that everything between that router in their network and their subscribers is uncongested – in fact has plenty of capacity sitting there waiting to be used. Above, I confirmed exactly the same thing for the Level 3 network. So in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers. Simple. Something we’ve been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion. Why is that? Maybe they can’t afford a new port card because they’ve run out – even though these cards are very cheap, just a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more. If that’s the case, we’ll buy one for them. Maybe they can’t afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that’s the case, we’ll provide it. Heck, we’ll even install it.
Taylor then proceeds to simply accuse Verizon of using interconnection drive up the costs of a competitor: quote: But, here’s the other interesting thing also shown in the Verizon diagram. This congestion only takes place between Verizon and network providers chosen by Netflix. The providers that Netflix does not use do not experience the same problem. Why is that? Could it be that Verizon does not want its customers to actually use the higher-speed services it sells to them? Could it be that Verizon wants to extract a pound of flesh from its competitors, using the monopoly it has over the only connection to its end-users to raise its competitors’ costs?
Again, if the FCC's investigation into possible anti-competitive behavior on the peering and interconnection front is worth anything, it should be able to rather quickly determine if Level3 (or Verizon) is telling the truth, right? |
AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL
7 recommendations |
Extended Moderation...It appears my reply on the Level 3 blog is going through extended moderation time, even though other replies and replies from the author have been posted. For anyone that cares, here it is...
--
This back and forth is getting really tiresome, neither this post nor the ones from Verizon are giving anywhere close to a complete picture of how the business relationship has been conducted in the past and present. Offering to pay for Verizon to upgrade their ports is like one of your customers offering to pay for the ports / cross connects to your network without any ongoing usage costs. No, its not an exact comparison, but its close enough for this grand-staging effort being conducted by all three levels (content producer, transit, residential ISP).
As to the suggestions that this is an intentional effort by Verizon to thwart NetFlix, the simple questions can be asked
Why are you selling a service (transit) to NetFlix that you know very well in advance that you cannot fully fulfill? If NetFlix is being targeted by Verizon (or Comcast, AT&T) unfairly, why have they and you elected not to pursue any legal remedies to date but rather instead wage a public public relations campaign?
The latest tactic appears to ask the US government to intervene, which may or may not be a bad thing, but remember most consumers only realize their NetFlix experience sucks and doesnt understand or care about peering in any shape or fashion. Regulation may come, but the government is not known for subtle or light gestures, its quite possible all parties involved will find themselves in a much worse position afterwards. Lets also not forget, the regulation may not stop at residential ISPs, interconnections are far more important than any single ISP.
To summarize: I believe all of the parties involved are simply trying to look out for their own interests and profits, rather than any genuine concern about how the Internet works. None of the parties to date have released any meaningful data publicly to support any of their claims, but rather have released highly summarized data that can not be analyzed or verified by any uninvolved party. | actions · 2014-Jul-17 6:57 pm · (locked) |
|
|