 DocDrewRF Medic
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
dv streaming
Technicolor TC4400
ARRIS TG1672
|
to BosstonesOwn
Re: Comcast: Pay Up!said by BosstonesOwn:Netflix paid cogent ! Comcast subs were drawing a crap ton of Cogents bandwidth... guess Comcast should have been heavily billed by cogent right ? Right this is how it should work ? Since data from multiple servers is transiting Cogent back and forth to multiple providers (like Comcast), much of it was a relatively even trade and Settlement Free Peering was probably agreed upon in most cases. Once a single server, like Netflix, starts pushing much more data through Cogent to get to providers those SPI agreements are being broken by the traffic imbalance. How much constitutes and imbalance depends on the ISP and the agreement. ISPs started demanding payment for the imbalance, which Cogent has every right to pass on (with their markup of course) to the servers, AND servers, like Netflix, should pay from their collected subscriber or ad fees for the bandwidth. Netflix should open their CDN to other video providers (like Comcast), then they could arrange to get payments or SPI in return. |
|
| |
connections
Anon
2014-Feb-23 5:47 pm
said by DocDrew:Netflix should open their CDN to other video providers (like Comcast), then they could arrange to get payments or SPI in return. There is zero logic to that at all. |
|
DocDrewRF Medic
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
dv streaming Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
ARRIS TG1672
3 edits |
DocDrew
Premium Member
2014-Feb-23 6:00 pm
said by connections :said by DocDrew:Netflix should open their CDN to other video providers (like Comcast), then they could arrange to get payments or SPI in return. There is zero logic to that at all. To get Settlement Free Peering with the ISPs they want a BALANCE in the traffic. Right now all the traffic with Netflix is one way: Netflix to ISP, so the ISPs are demanding payment for the traffic. If Netflix had something to trade, namely an expense the ISP pays to another company like transit to another network or CDN host capacity for their own content (like TV Everywhere video streams), then Netflix has something to bargin with for Settlement Free Peering. Comcast does own NBC Universal and they do have a lot of upstream traffic they push around... too bad Netflix can't do anything with that.... |
|
| |
said by DocDrew:To get Settlement Free Peering with the ISPs they want a BALANCE in the traffic. YOU. CAN. NEVER. HAVE. A. BALANCE. WITH. AN. END. USER. ISP. Settlement free peering agreements (based on equal traffic) were designed for transit to other parts of the Internet. "Hey, I'll pass some of your data over to the next network if you pass some of mine to that network I don't have a good connection to okay?" That type of settlement free peering is NOT for ISPs. |
|
|
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
to DocDrew
Does the OpenConnect network actually go anywhere? They have peering locations across the US for ISPs to interconnect, but do they actually have a real transit network carrying traffic to those locations? |
|
DocDrewRF Medic
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
dv streaming Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
ARRIS TG1672
|
to nothing00
Being that the major ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, ATT, TWC, etc.) also have national networks, they offer Settlement Free Peering for their network attachments that qualify. Not all the traffic crossing their networks is for their directly connected end users. Interconnects between ISPs are a good example of this: Tracing route to dslreports.com [64.91.255.98]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 10 ms 10 ms 8 ms
2 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms tge0-0-7-3.pldlcabl01h.socal.rr.com [76.166.25.2
5]
3 12 ms 16 ms 14 ms agg33.lsancarc01r.socal.rr.com [72.129.27.64]
4 16 ms 14 ms 16 ms bu-ether26.lsancarc0yw-bcr00.tbone.rr.com [66.10
9.6.212]
5 28 ms 12 ms 11 ms 107.14.17.250
6 43 ms 11 ms 23 ms xe-0-3-2-0-pe01.onewilshire.ca.ibone.comcast.net
[173.167.59.45]
7 14 ms 11 ms 11 ms te-2-0-0-8-cr01.losangeles.ca.ibone.comcast.net
[68.86.84.9]
8 23 ms 31 ms 27 ms 68.86.86.101
9 62 ms 53 ms 55 ms he-0-13-0-0-cr01.denverqwest.co.ibone.comcast.ne
t [68.86.89.130]
10 54 ms 54 ms 62 ms he-3-12-0-0-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net [68
.86.89.33]
11 67 ms 64 ms 63 ms 68.86.86.109
12 75 ms 67 ms 70 ms be-13-pe03.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.8
6.84.250]
13 67 ms 75 ms 70 ms as32244.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net [66.208.
216.86]
14 71 ms 72 ms 69 ms lw-dc2-core6-te9-2.rtr.liquidweb.com [209.59.157
.226]
15 70 ms 69 ms 71 ms lw-dc3-dist15.rtr.liquidweb.com [69.167.128.205]
16 71 ms 70 ms 79 ms www.dslreports.com [64.91.255.98]
Trace complete.\ That's a trace from a TWC customer using Comcast as transit to Liquidweb, provider for DSLReports. |
|
| |
said by DocDrew:Being that the major ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, ATT, TWC, etc.) also have national networks, they offer Settlement Free Peering That's good. This is what settlement free peering agreements work well for - transit. Unfortunately it appears there's no separating the ISP from the rest of their telecom business. They can use this obfuscation to attempt to both have their cake and eat it too. |
|
 jlivingood
Premium Member
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA |
to nothing00
said by nothing00:YOU. CAN. NEVER. HAVE. A. BALANCE. WITH. AN. END. USER. ISP. That may have been the case a decade or more ago but it is not any more, or at least not on the Comcast network. |
|
DocDrewRF Medic
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
dv streaming Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
ARRIS TG1672
2 edits |
to nothing00
said by nothing00:They can use this obfuscation to attempt to both have their cake and eat it too. Netflix did that too when they contracted Level3 to be their CDN provider so they could piggy back on their SFP agreements with ISPs. It worked until the video traffic blew out the balance. Netflix also tried it with the postal service shipping their DVDs. They got low ball rates others, like Gamefly, couldn't get by working through loopholes in the postal rules: » www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/u ··· bor/7251Everyone tries to use the system to their advantage. |
|
| |
to jlivingood
said by jlivingood:That may have been the case a decade or more ago but it is not any more, or at least not on the Comcast network. But "the Comcast network" is not a just an end-user residential ISP network. If you're saying that there's almost equal balance between in/out traffic from just your residential ISP customers I'd be gobsmacked. |
|
jlivingood
Premium Member
join:2007-10-28
Philadelphia, PA |
said by nothing00:said by jlivingood:That may have been the case a decade or more ago but it is not any more, or at least not on the Comcast network. But "the Comcast network" is not a just an end-user residential ISP network. If you're saying that there's almost equal balance between in/out traffic from just your residential ISP customers I'd be gobsmacked. No I think we're actually saying the same thing (perhaps just confusingly on my part). |
|
DocDrewRF Medic
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
dv streaming Ubee E31U2V1
Technicolor TC4400
ARRIS TG1672
|
to silbaco
said by silbaco:Does the OpenConnect network actually go anywhere? They have peering locations across the US for ISPs to interconnect, but do they actually have a real transit network carrying traffic to those locations? They have to in some way, at least to get content to all the caching servers and between the caching servers and interconnect points. |
|
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit |
to jlivingood
said by jlivingood:That may have been the case a decade or more ago but it is not any more, or at least not on the Comcast network. So are you saying an eyeball network that has it's own backbone around the US is entitled to be paid by CDNs such as Netflix, or does that only apply once you are large enough to make those demands? Would you classify Netflix as having their own backbone considering their presence around the US (globally for that matter) and being able to peer at numerous IXPs? A smaller ISP (albeit large enough to have more than a regional presence) could certainly justify leasing transport to all the same IXPs and look just like any other carrier having the ability to peer at neutral locations. Where is the line drawn between settlement-free peering and being paid to have other networks peer with you? Obviously Comcast has grown their network over the years to act more as a carrier at times. It just seems odd that some carriers and transit networks view settlement-free peering different than others. That no longer looks like an "industry standard", and now appears more as differing business models. It's completely fine to have a differing business model, but to say settlement-free peering is strictly on ratios and "how the industry operates" is somewhat of a fabrication when there are numerous other carriers (with comparable backbone capacity) approaching settlement-free peering in a completely different fashion. My .02 |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK |
KrK to DocDrew
Premium Member
2014-Feb-24 10:30 am
to DocDrew
Comcast's users create the traffic. Comcast is SUPPOSED to support their user's bandwidth consumption.
This is a crazy business model, where you get to double or triple dip. |
|
 SpaethCoDigital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN |
said by KrK:Comcast's users create the traffic. Comcast is SUPPOSED to support their user's bandwidth consumption.
This is a crazy business model, where you get to double or triple dip. Triple dip? The old model was Netflix paid Cogent/LimeLight/Akamai/Level(3) for transit/delivery, and those providers paid Comcast in the form of either settlement or reduced cost transit. Now Netflix pays Comcast for direct delivery, and probably pays less in the process without a middle man in the transaction. Overall this will likely be close to a zero-sum game, because the loss of Comcast end-user traffic will mean less billable bandwidth for Cogent/LimeLight/Akamai/Level(3), which will certainly affect the contract negotiations and bandwidth pricing structure between those entities and Comcast going forward. |
|
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN |
BlueC
Member
2014-Feb-24 1:10 pm
said by SpaethCo:said by KrK:Comcast's users create the traffic. Comcast is SUPPOSED to support their user's bandwidth consumption.
This is a crazy business model, where you get to double or triple dip. Now Netflix pays Comcast for direct delivery, and probably pays less in the process without a middle man in the transaction. Perhaps, but I've seen it be cheaper to get good quality transit rather than paid peering with an ASN who charges a premium for direct access to their network. At least with a transit provider you're paying for full routes. |
|
