Netflix Tries To Explain 'Fast Lanes' And Its Opposition To Them Tuesday Jan 06 2015 10:24 EDT Netflix has again proclaimed that the company's use of content delivery networks (CDNs) does not constitute a violation of net neutrality or the use of so-called "fast lanes." The company has been in a heated debate with Comcast and other large ISPs for months, after customer Netflix performance began to suffer last year on only the biggest ISPs, something that was resolved only after paying these carriers new interconnection fees. If you'll recall, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai accused Netflix (pdf) of hypocrisy because the company uses its own CDN to deliver video traffic more efficiently. In a response, Netflix had to illustrate how CDNs actually help both content companies and ISPs alike. In a new blog post, Netflix VP of content delivery Ken Florance again reiterates that it's the mega-ISPs that are engaged in the use of "fast lanes," and that even though Netflix ultimately paid AT&T, Verizon and Comcast for direct interconnection, they still aren't happy about it. "Allowing fast lanes gives ISPs a perverse incentive to boost revenues by allowing their networks to congest," complains Florance. "It also gives them outsize power to pick winners and losers on the Internet." Netflix's complaints continue to mirror those of transit companies like Level 3 and Cogent, who also have accused big ISPs of letting interconnection points intentionally degrade to generate new revenue. "Those who can’t pay for fast lanes will suffer, entrenching incumbents while undermining the innovative power of the Internet," states the company. "While the largest ISPs have said they’re not interested in creating fast lanes, one need only look at how they have sought to monetize their network interconnection points to get a glimpse of the future." While that's all well and good, we're still not any closing to resolving this dispute than we were before, since neither Netflix or the ISPs have provided the kind of raw data necessary to fully prove their point. Some of that data has been delivered to the FCC for an investigation into claims of anti-competitive behavior, though the agency has yet to comment on what that data actually shows. |
 | |
Net Neutrality or Artificial Scarcity?; that is the questionor; How much dark fiber is already in place?
I believe Mobile should have traffic shaping as needed. I also believe symmetrical Gigabyte is a human right. | |
| | |
BigFive
Anon
2015-Jan-6 10:56 am
Netflix own CDN or Direct Interconnection - no reasonable differenceNetflix has their own CDN with caching devices put on ISP property. Or ISPs have Direct Interconnection with Netflix. Costs are almost identical to both parties. Both solutions provide FAST LANE connection speeds to Netflix. So what is the difference for the end Netflix customer? None. Both solutions give Netflix a leg up on other SMALLER streaming providers. Only Google and Amazon and Microsoft and Apple are on the same playing level as Netflix. The smaller competitors will never be as competitive as those 5 big content providers. And nothing the FCC can do will change that reality. | |
|  | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1  ·Xfinity
 ·Integra Telecom
|
BlueC
Member
2015-Jan-6 12:01 pm
Re: Netflix own CDN or Direct Interconnection - no reasonable differencesaid by BigFive :The smaller competitors will never be as competitive as those 5 big content providers.
Only if the said ISPs allow their other transit/peers to become congested. To me, a "fast lane" would be an ISP providing priority for certain packets over others, it should have nothing to do with transit/peering unless the said ISP allows for congestion on certain connections. Of course in a perfect world, ISPs would properly maintain capacity when connecting with other networks. | |
|
| |
en103
Member
2015-Jan-6 11:18 am
Having a CDN won't help because...Basically this is Verizon (or any other ISP that wants to do this) effectively say:
We have ~ 10Gbps (don't have actual numbers here) of throughput at this site. If we're going to be a Tier II and treat all traffic the same, then we effectively can/will set all traffic max out from a source net (eg. Netflix) to ~1Gbps MAX - regardless of any other traffic.
On the Netflix side - We have capacity to our ISP's at 10 to 50Gbps.
This becomes a question of
a) Does VZ (or any ISP) become forced to upgrade their network because of an application demand ?
b) Does Netflix have to effectively 'pay to play' | |
| | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...en103: So when the ISP does not provide the service they promised the customer, it's Netflix's fault?
The ISP is paid by us to give us an internet connection. If 90% of the country was not a monopoly market, they wouldn't be able to get away with providing such sub-standard service.
*No, I don't run my own ISP, I just wish I did. | |
| | | | |
BigFive
Anon
2015-Jan-6 11:37 am
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...said by travisdh1:en103: So when the ISP does not provide the service they promised the customer, it's Netflix's fault?
It is both the ISPs and Netflix's responsibility to WORK TOGETHER when delivering such a massive amount of data that Netflix generates. Netflix doesn't get to dictate the terms of the interconnection. It is a negotiated contract between the parties on how to do that. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...No it is not. ISP's are 100% responsible for delivering 100% of all of THEIR paying subscribers traffic to them efficiently. What that traffic contains and whom it is from is 100% irrelevant.
It is the only reason they are being paid, PERIOD. If the ISP can't meet the demand of their subscribers then they need to upgrade the nodes that are saturated or start cancelling subscriptions so they have less consumers to put traffic demands on them. | |
| | | | | | |
BigFive
Anon
2015-Jan-6 12:11 pm
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...said by Skippy25:No it is not. ISP's are 100% responsible for delivering 100% of all of THEIR paying subscribers traffic to them efficiently. What that traffic contains and whom it is from is 100% irrelevant.
Refusing to accept reality and holding to some fantasy about how the internet should be in some Star Trek like future does nothing to make it work today. Amounts of traffic is not irrelevant. It is very relevant to making the system work. | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...I am not the one refusing to accept reality or holding some fantasy as you and the ISP's are in thinking that content providers (websites, video sites, whatever other service) should be paying the expense for the very thing your consumers are already paying you for (network upgrades). Which I might add is not StarTrek like, it is the way the internet has worked since it was invented.
You are right, the amount of traffic is not irrelevant. It is a very relevant reason as to why the ISPs need to upgrade their network to support it as it grows. It is the only reason their consumers are paying them. And again, is exactly how the internet has worked from the beginning.
What is irrelevant is what that traffic is. It doesn't matter whom it is coming from or why their paying customers are requesting it. It is still 100% the job of the ISP to make sure ALL traffic from the internet that their subscribers want is delivered to them efficiently. If they can't do that, then they need to improve their network or reduce their subscribers to a more manageable size. | |
| | | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1 ·Xfinity
·Integra Telecom
|
to BigFive
Why is it that numerous small/mid-size ISPs seem to have no issues latching onto settlement-free multilateral peering with networks like Netflix and other CDNs, yet some of the largest ISPs flat out refuse to do the same?
Why are some of the largest ISPs having congestion issues, having difficulty delivering packets from certain networks to their subscribers, and yet smaller ISPs have no problems delivering the same said packets?
Why do these questions get ignored and yet we hear complete nonsense about "balanced ratios" and "this is not how the internet works"?
Seems to me it's a preference on how you do business in this industry, rather than an industry standard. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...Actually, peering is based on balanced ratios. Well it started that way (I worked for UUNET way back in the early days of the internet). The fee free agreement says you will take our traffic, in return, we will take your traffic. Now granted, it does not have to be 100% equal, but a lopsided peer where you are taking 90% of the ratio, at that point you are no longer a peer, but a customer. There should be a cost involved.
The problem with Verizon (which swallowed up the UUNET/MFS/MCI/Worldcom/"whatever it was called at some point in time" monster), is that they are now both a backbone provider, and an end user provider.
Too much control and incentive. I miss the days when you had backbone providers, customers of backbone providers (could be ISP, Datacenter), and then those backbone customers provide end user connections (people, business accounts, business dedicated lines, etc). Backbone providers peered with each other, everyone else had to buy their bandwidth. Always know who was at fault in that chain when traffic started to degrade. | |
| | | | | | | |
2 edits |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...An ISP for subscriber paying users is not free base peering with anyone. They are buying access to the internet as a download intensive agreement as without that, they are nothing but a big local AOL network without the actual internet.
The fact that some ISPs are so large now that they have a foot print that can be utilized by other companies to reach other parts of the internet thus encouraging them to be peered with, in no way suddenly makes all their traffic "peering" traffic. Their ISP traffic coming to them at the request of their ISP subscribers is still ISP traffic and any traffic traversing their network by other sources is peering traffic. Them trying to muddy the water to their benefit in this is a political / PR ploy to fuzzy all this up for the general user. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
to jvanbrecht
said by jvanbrecht:Actually, peering is based on balanced ratios. Well it started that way (I worked for UUNET way back in the early days of the internet). The fee free agreement says you will take our traffic, in return, we will take your traffic. Now granted, it does not have to be 100% equal, but a lopsided peer where you are taking 90% of the ratio, at that point you are no longer a peer, but a customer. There should be a cost involved.
The problem with Verizon (which swallowed up the UUNET/MFS/MCI/Worldcom/"whatever it was called at some point in time" monster), is that they are now both a backbone provider, and an end user provider.
Too much control and incentive. I miss the days when you had backbone providers, customers of backbone providers (could be ISP, Datacenter), and then those backbone customers provide end user connections (people, business accounts, business dedicated lines, etc). Backbone providers peered with each other, everyone else had to buy their bandwidth. Always know who was at fault in that chain when traffic started to degrade.
I never did understand those contracts. Surely common sense tells you that nobody will ever be having the same amount of traffic entering/exiting their network. Who ever thought that sort of contract could possibly work? | |
|
| | | | | | cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9 |
to BlueC
Ah, but they aren't. They are giving in to Netflix by installing their content cache engines and eating any associated costs -- man power, rack space, power, and cooling. In the short term, it's a quick, "no cost" fix. In the long term, it may be cheaper, but the costs aren't a single, black and white line item to lament every month. (it's buried in incremental costs across multiple lines.) What you (and many others) don't understand is the sheer volume Netflix flings. For ISPs the size of FiOS, Uverse, etc., this isn't "we need another 100M" or even 1G; it's 10's of GBs, for a few hours a day, for a single f'ing company. (a massive, extended peak during "prime time" -- orders of magnitude distortion of the normal rollercoaster traffic model.) Why do these questions get ignored and yet we hear complete nonsense about "balanced ratios" and "this is not how the internet works"? They aren't being ignored. And it is how settlement-free peering ("the internet") works. We each pay our own way to some point to exchange traffic. The I-don't-pay-you-and-you-don't-pay-me contract stipulates we exchange relatively the same amount of traffic. When you take on Netflix as a customer and start sending me 500,000 times more traffic than I send you, (a) the contract is no longer valid, an (b) we're gonna have words. Using Level 3 vs Comcast as an example, when L3 got a Netflix contract, they suddenly flooded the comcast-paid-for transit connection. L3 offered to increase the 10G link to 100G and continue charging the 10G price (for example, not sure what the actual links were.) Comcast isn't stupid or blind; they used the situation to their benefit by turning a bill into a check. (L3 now pays them for that link) [Netflix is already paying L3 a ton to deliver that traffic. Why should Comcast have to pay to receive it? If L3 drops the ball, Netflix will rent someone else's ball. Thus L3 has a significant incentive to "give in" to Comcast.] (In case you didn't know, this is the very definition of "double dipping". L3 tried to get paid twice for the same traffic... from netflix when it entered, and comcast when it exited.) | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...You are playing with smoke and mirrors here.
ISP's traffic is download intensive and will never be equal so if you want to talk about peering agreements and the equal exchange of traffic then we need to eliminate all traffic that terminates locally on that ISPs network and this includes 100% of all Netflix traffic to any paying subscriber of said ISP. Once you do that, then lets see how properly balanced those ports are.
The L3 scenario you are using is a little cloudy as well being it is the ISPs own paying subscribers that are requesting the data. Whom it is that is passing it off to the ISPs network at that request is not relevant. An ISP is part of the internet because they pay to peer with backbone providers to allow for their local traffic to traverse the internet and to allow their consumers to actually participate on the internet. Without that, ISPs are nothing and would have no subscribers. The fact that some of them have gotten so vast that their "local" networks are so large that others can use it to traverse is irrelevant as it is still their ISP consumers requesting the data. If they don't like that their subscribers are requesting some much traffic across their nodes (regardless who they are connected to) then they should reduce the number of subscribers to reduce the amount of ISP traffic their subscribers are requesting. They don't get to mix their ISP traffic in with their actual peering traffic and tell L3 you are forcing us to accept too much traffic from you. | |
| | | | | | | | | cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9 |
cramer
Premium Member
2015-Jan-7 1:56 am
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...said by Skippy25:ISP's traffic is download intensive and will never be equal... That certainly used to be true -- ISPs were transit customers. However due to most ISPs being part of (or grown into) major network entities -- Verizon, AT&T, TW -- the line is very blurred, if it even still exists. They run CDNs, host sundry "clouds", and own various content. They've also grown well past the point their greed can be tamed, and they're so well entrenched, attempting to compete with them is suicidal. (it can be done if you don't mind setting the occasional suitcase of cash on fire.) | |
|
| | | | | | | BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1 ·Xfinity
·Integra Telecom
|
to cramer
I strongly disagree with that POV.
That said Netflix traffic will exist no matter what, albeit degraded if the ISP chooses not to provide their subscribers with enough capacity on their network. It's not like a provider such as Comcast is being blindly thrown traffic at their network and thus forced to accommodate it. C'mon, it's in result of their paying subscribers! If one of their subscribers is using their provisioned connect to its limits and that's a burden, perhaps the provisioned limit (enforced by no one else by the said ISP) is the issue.
You bring size into the discussion, however that's an advantage to a larger ISP. More subscribers = lower cost of OPEX per subscriber.
Settlement-free peering is a business decision, and I have seen this business decision largely in relation to a mutual benefit. Very seldom due to "traffic ratios". An ISP service many residential customers will largely benefit by having direct connectivity with Netflix, given that it isolates a large portion of traffic, which should effectively make it easier to manage. Not to mention it's at no cost other than general equipment costs (which would be realized in any scenario!).
I sure would love to be paid for my transited traffic that my subscribers generate. I, instead (as a smaller ISP), have to PAY for it. So I gladly welcome settlement-free peering with networks such as Netflix.
Perhaps the main issue is the general conflict of interest regarding ISPs trying to act as a backbone provider and at the same time supporting paying subscribers. It screws over other ISPs. They are just as much to blame as Netflix is by others. | |
| | | | | | | | | cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9 |
cramer
Premium Member
2015-Jan-7 2:24 am
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...said by BlueC:It's not like a provider such as Comcast is being blindly thrown traffic at their network and thus forced to accommodate it. That's exactly what's happening. While it wasn't an instantaneous switch, it was apparent over the span of days when Netflix switched to their in-house CDN. Traffic that used to traverse adequate links (from Akamai, etc.) shifted to L3 (for Comcast) and Cogent (FiOS), saturating that were perfectly sufficient links yesterday / last week. (I've said this before) As the ISP, why should I know have to shoulder the burden to purchase greater capacity from L3/Cogent/whomever -- that they are ALREADY being paid in the extreme by Netflix to handle -- because of the actions of a single For Profit company? Plus, they can change providers at will -- they just did -- putting me right back in the same mess on top of the now significant excess capacity that I'm bound by contracts to keep. Some ISPs aren't going to play that game. If you want to send frightful levels of traffic to me, buy a direct connection -- whatever it takes to get your network to touch my network (i.e. " private peering".) (best case, no money is involved to run a cable across a hall.) Others will gladly (or begrudgingly) rack a few "OpenConnect" nodes and get back to business. | |
|
| | | | | | |  firephotoWe the people
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA |
to cramer
The big problem is that most ISP limit the upload of their customers by a huge percent compared to the download so they st themselves up as being "abused" by huge downloads from media companies. Even without this lopsided situation the customers will never be able to upload as much as they can consume so again it sets the ISP up to be the winner in any "free peering" situation.
No matter all the shenanigans with the agreements, it's obvious to anyone paying attention to the bits coming in and going out that there is a whole lot of network manipulation and intentional degradation out there. Add to this the stupidity of transmitting huge streaming videos over the same connections multiple identical times for multiple customers to saturate poor links and enrich the owners of other little used links because they are the gate keeper for their customers and for their backbones. Netflix has the perfect solution but Comcast and friends don't like it because they can levy the toll off of all the duplicated bits on the good routes they own while letting other services suffer on the routes they don't own but still allow most traffic to be dumped onto.
--
Say no to those that ‘inadvertently make false representations’. | |
| | | | | | | |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY |
to cramer
said by cramer:Ah, but they aren't. They are giving in to Netflix by installing their content cache engines and eating any associated costs -- man power, rack space, power, and cooling. In the short term, it's a quick, "no cost" fix. In the long term, it may be cheaper, but the costs aren't a single, black and white line item to lament every month. (it's buried in incremental costs across multiple lines.)
You are not describing the situation correctly. Netflix is co-locating their hardware in an ISP Datacenter AND paying for the the power, rack space, etc. just like any co-location situation. The only connection these servers have to the internet is that needed for Netflix to add extra content to them. All connections between the ISP customer and these servers flows over the ISP's LAN Network just like a connection from ISP Customer 1 and ISP Customer 2 (in fact Netflix is in the same as any other customer of the ISP). The ISP may charge them for LAN Bandwidth (as it may for customer-to-customer sessions) but that is it. | |
|
| | | | |  ·Verizon FiOS
|
to BigFive
You are conflating endpoint delivery which the operator (newBell) is 100% responsible for versus intercon. My FiOS line can far exceed what I use, however during peak times maybe that is a traffic management issue. So since Verizon charges me $20 more a month for 75/75 versus their lowest tier, I expect that $20 a month is going toward buying better gear to support my levels of service.
Intercon on the other hand is how external networks transit onto the operator network (in my case UUNET/Verizon). Those are governed by intercon contracts an up until recently Netflix had contracted w/ 3rd parties to deliver to Verizon (and Comcast) customers, because simple as putting CDN in their vast networks, they didn't want to do that BECAUSE they have substantial tier1 networks that their business services want to make money on. Lets call a spade a spade here.
This is the EXACT model the Bells used decades ago to control the inter-LATA traffic and balloon long-distance calls until that market was finally deregulated after decades of consumer MISERY and HIGH COST.
You do get (or not apparently) if it gets down to 3/4 operators (aka regional newBells), then their inter-LATA (intercon) they will control the pricing to those gateways because they own the customers, and then simply jack up the price of intercon (like they did back in the old Bell days) so that something that costs almost NOTHING to deliver now costs millions. And a Netflix $8 subscription is now $20 because of intercon fees AND the operator limits you to 200GB, making ANOTHER $30 a month on that side, so now your $8 netflix costs $50.
Of course you could go for the substandard newBell alternative for $40 (redbox) and they won't count that against your caps. You see where I am going bro...
Then you get into Title II, tariffs, etc and you have the 70's and 80's all over again.
If they were wise(meaning the government), last mile is regulated like a utility, and then from there open competition. Game over, costs plummet. However washington is for sale, and the lobbyists have doubled down. | |
|
| | | | | |
to Skippy25
Netflix is attempting to force ISPs to eat all of Netflix's traffic through the same 2-3 low-cost transit providers. From the ISP side of things, depending extremely heavily on any single transit provider for business is suicidal so they are refusing to upgrade those links while they still have tons of under-used capacity with many of their other peers that could easily pick up the slack if Netflix and their low-cost transit/CDN partners offloaded traffic to those alternate routes.
I do not remember which ISP it was but one of the big three published numbers saying that at the time their L3 links were congested by Netflix traffic, they still had hundreds of Gbps of spare capacity with their other peers and transit providers that Netflix/L3/Cogent could have routed excess traffic to if Netflix had wanted to fix congestion issues. Of course, that would have meant Netflix or L3 having to eat the costs of connecting to those other peers and transit providers.
Verizon, Comcast, ATT and others telling L3 that they do not want to upgrade peering/transit any further because of excessive Netflix traffic may not be popular but it is necessary to prevent Netflix from effectively causing a vendor lock-in. | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...You twist the truth and mess with logic here.
No netflix is not attempting to force ISPs to do anything. ISP's paying subscribers are requesting data from the internet. Nobody is forcing them to make those request and thus nobody is forcing bits on any ISP network.
The fact they have under used capacity with other peers is their problem. They should allocate less capacity there and put it where it is needed. As that is what good network management is about and that is why the pay network engineers to manage their network.
All of you guys can try to spin this any way you want it but the bottom line is this and not a single one of you can argue with it: The ISP consumers are 100% responsible for all of the traffic that comes across their edge routers as that is what they pay them for. The ISP is responsible for making sure their network can handle that traffic no matter how much it is or where it is coming from. | |
| | | | | | | cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9 |
cramer
Premium Member
2015-Jan-7 7:38 pm
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...Netflix has considerable control over the path traffic takes out of their network toward any particular client. It's called "traffic engineering" -- something real CDNs do with scary efficiency. Netflix apparently doesn't have a whisper of a clue how to do this. (one of a long list of their I-want-to-be-a-CDN failings.)
The part about putting capacity where it's needed is BS. Netflix can change providers or alter their routing and INSTANTLY render your new contracts completely useless. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...Doesnt matter. All they need to do is find a company to assist them being on the network.
The ISP is still responsible for making sure their subscribers can receive that traffic. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...ISPs also need to keep content providers, CDNs, peers and transit providers in check.
Being effectively forced to upgrade L3 peering primarily because of Netflix at the expense of all other peering would put the ISPs in a dangerously precarious position where L3 would have excessive leverage in peering/transit disputes. Instead of letting that threat get worse, ISPs decided to stop upgrading those links and force Netflix to give in.
This is business 101: avoid depending on a single vendor or you lose negotiation leverage.
Netflix would be similarly screwed if they had a falling out with L3. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...ISP, need to provide the internet to their paying subscribers. That is why they are being paid. IF their paying subscribers are using traffic that is causing an issue for them to maintain their network, they need to address that by upgrading or getting less subscribers. The choice is theirs to make.
L3 traffic, other CDN traffic or other peer/transit traffic is caused by them taking on customers. If they dont like it, they can stop taking on customers.
If Netflix decides to put all their eggs in one basket for supplying their core product that is their choice. A poor choice, but their choice to make. They have no obligation to try to balance out the traffic to ISPs when it is traffic that ISP's consumers are creating. Netflix just needs to be sure their connection to the Internet, not ISPs, is substantial enough to satisfy their consumer base. It is the ISP's responsibility to make sure they can accept the traffic that their consumers want from whatever source it comes from whether it be a peer or transit provider. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...If Netflix decides to push 100% of traffic through L3, L3 will attempt to push all of that traffic through their peering and transit to ISPs. ISPs can always refuse to let peers and transit providers impose more traffic than the ISPs might be willing to take from them.
Netflix has TOTAL CONTROL over their choice of outbound traffic routing and failure/refusal to leverage ISPs' other peers is ENTIRELY Netflix and L3's faults.
The ISPs' customers may be at "fault" for originating the traffic requests but ISPs have very limited control over inbound routing other than omitting route advertisements on their border routers to force entire IP blocks through alternate peers/transit, which could cause a whole different lot of performance issues from forcing traffic to take sub-optimal routes in bulk.
It would have been interesting to see what Netflix/L3 would have done if Comcast, VZ and ATT simply stopped advertising entire IP blocks on L3 interfaces to reduce traffic until congestion stopped. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...Now you are talking shear nonsense.
Netflix does not PUSH any traffic. L3 does not PUSH any of Netflix traffic. Neither of those companies have any obligation to balance the load of a connected ISP's traffic across different nodes or providers. It is the ISP's responsibility, not matter how you try to spin it, to make sure their network/nodes/peering points are able to handle the traffic that their own paying consumers bring to that point. How it got there, what it contains and where it is from has absolutely no relevance in any of this.
You are right, ISP's have limited control of the inbound traffic they get because it is their consumers making those request from all over the world. However, what they do have control over is how well they maintain those points. So if their consumers are saturating them, upgrade them. Remember this problem is not because of traffic that is entering their network at one point, going across their network to exit it to reach another point of the internet. This is traffic entering their network because their ISP consumers have requested it and it will terminate on their network. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...Netflix does push traffic over L3 since L3 is one of Netflix's biggest transit providers. In this context, I mean "push" as in heavily favor outbound routes from Netflix through L3 for all destinations reachable through L3.
Netflix and L3 knew full well that they were pushing the limits of peering agreements L3 have with ISPs well beyond their breaking points. L3 tried to use their near-monopoly over Netflix traffic to force ISPs to negotiate peering terms more favorable to L3 and failed. That's why Netflix had to cave in when ISPs decided to call L3 and Netflix's legal bluffs and refused to kiss L3's behind.
Netflix would have never had this issue if they built their CDN with ROUTE DIVERSITY in mind like most other content providers instead of relying heavily on L3. ISPs refusing to increase L3 capacity is simply ISPs refusing to make themselves excessively vulnerable to L3's, and by extension, Netflix's whims.
Like it or not, it was necessary: Netflix was making a stupid mistake (depending too heavily on a single transit provider) and the major ISPs refused to follow it. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Having a CDN won't help because...You repeating the same BS does not change the fact the ISPs need to maintain the network properly for the traffic that their consumers request. What that traffic is, how it got there and whom it is from does not matter.
You implying that Netflix has to contract with many different providers so they can load balance ISP backbone connections is flat out ridiculous. They have no obligation to do so for the sake of the ISP not having to upgrade their network. That is the ISP's problem to manage and extortion is not a valid management method. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
•••••
| | | |  ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT |
to BigFive
Netflix doesn't generate the data. Customers (of Netflix and the ISP) generate that data by requesting it.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
|
| b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA ·Xfinity
|
to en103
said by en103:This becomes a question of
a) Does VZ (or any ISP) become forced to upgrade their network because of an application demand ?
b) Does Netflix have to effectively 'pay to play' A) Yes, an ISP should upgrade it's network to meet customer demand. B) No, Netflix pays for it's internet access already. Netflix should not have to pay twice once to get on the internet and again to get off the internet. Also read my Sig line  --
Netflix is not "pushing data" onto Comcast's network, Comcast customers are "pulling data" from Netflix.
| |
| | |
••••••••••••
| quisp65
join:2003-05-03
San Diego, CA ·Time Warner Cable
|
CDNs, Large Media content providers & the discrimination from being bigI suspect this issue will be one of the core issue the FCC looks at as it builds its set of rules. I don't suspect a telco style Title II, but a set of rules just dealing with issues that prevent discrimination from large video streaming businesses as the cord cutter market slowly opens up. | |
| | |
How The Hell?Does anyone think as CDN is in anyway comparable to an ISP imposed speed limit?
A CDN is just outsourcing content delivery to a well connected 3rd party. It's not gaining a speed advantage through the manipulation of other traffic. | |
| |
••••••• | | |
How are we still having this argument?Look at the ISP's that don't offer cable/video service. Most of us have no issues with handling Netflix traffic or peering. I work for an independent ISP, if we can't handle the Netflix traffic, we are not doing our job by serving our customers REQUEST for this data. That's what we do, supply data when a customer requests it. We constantly monitor this to ensure we are meeting customer demands. We do not have a video business to protect and we have experienced no issues increasing our peering arrangements with Netflix for an ever increasing amount of traffic.
It's blatantly obvious the big players with a video biz of their own are intentionally allowing the interconnects to saturate to protect their own interests. | |
|
| |
|
How about .. |
·
·
·
