|
psydude posted:In related news, Comcast and Netflix reached a financial agreement whereby Netflix will pay Comcast a premium as a part of a peering and interconnect agreement for better handling of their content, effectively circumventing the net neutrality agreement Comcast signed. Am I the only who thinks this is a horrible trend setter? If larger companies continues to comply with this, wouldn't this become de facto practice for the industry?
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
nescience posted:Am I the only who thinks this is a horrible trend setter? If larger companies continues to comply with this, wouldn't this become de facto practice for the industry? AFAIK, this is how certain channels here (The Netherlands) work. The one that got in the news was Eurosport, who paid 25cts per viewer or somesuch a few years back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Sounds like it's mostly because Cogent is a giant piece of poo poo. (They are.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
I don't think it's as bad as the media is making it. It used to be that ISPs would give more capacity than promised to the networks they're linked with in expectation that they'd do the same. Netflix's traffic is mostly one way, so they didn't have any extra capacity to give, so Comcast isn't giving them any extra either unless they pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
dpbjinc posted:I don't think it's as bad as the media is making it. It used to be that ISPs would give more capacity than promised to the networks they're linked with in expectation that they'd do the same. Netflix's traffic is mostly one way, so they didn't have any extra capacity to give, so Comcast isn't giving them any extra either unless they pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
I am finding it difficult to get mad at Netflix only because Netflix makes up a very large portion of internet traffic and requires a ton of bandwidth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
But Netflix pay their providers to carry that traffic already, and those providers make the peering agreements. The only reason people like Comcast are getting pissed off and asking for more cash now (apart from it competing with their own services) is that it's a really easy way to show up a lack of investment in their network.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Caged posted:But Netflix pay their providers to carry that traffic already, and those providers make the peering agreements. Netflix wants/needs direct connection to each isp now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Netflix wants/needs direct connection to each isp now. Haven't they been doing something like that for a while? I know some ISPs can run "Super HD" and some can't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Caged posted:Haven't they been doing something like that for a while? I know some ISPs can run "Super HD" and some can't. I guess not since they just started paying comcast to do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
I didn't mean the paying thing, maybe it was putting edge servers inside ISP networks. I can't find the page now but at least in the UK there were ISPs that Super HD worked on, and ones where it didn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
A lot of ISPs got edge caching arrangements set up with Netflix years ago, but the infrastructure used wasn't suited to Netflix's vast growth since then. Additionally, these were often set up either when Netflix was only pushing out SD video or at the start of their introduction of HD video, and as such can't handle so many more subscribers all using HD. This is a large part of why many ISPs now have trouble providing Netflix without excessive buffering at high demand times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Caged posted:But Netflix pay their providers to carry that traffic already, and those providers make the peering agreements. The only reason people like Comcast are getting pissed off and asking for more cash now (apart from it competing with their own services) is that it's a really easy way to show up a lack of investment in their network. I am assuming Netflix is paying Cogent a boatload of money for a ton of bandwidth, and was previously not paying Comcast or other ISPs any extra for the additional load. In that regard, I cant get mad at Netflix for paying Comcast because Netflix has caused a big increase in bandwidth usage. However, I can get upset at Cogent demanding Verizon pay to upgrade their links because Cogent is being paid a ton of money from Netflix and Verizon is not being paid by Netflix. Maybe I've got this all wrong, but that is how I see it. I can understand websitea.com and websiteb.com not paying extra to the ISP but that is some random website not making up 30% of all internet traffic. The big thing that I am assuming here (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that Comcast probably has to spend a lot of money to ensure that Netflix has enough bandwidth to operate while Netflix was only paying Cogent for service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Crotch Fruit posted:I am assuming Netflix is paying Cogent a boatload of money for a ton of bandwidth, and was previously not paying Comcast or other ISPs any extra for the additional load. In that regard, I cant get mad at Netflix for paying Comcast because Netflix has caused a big increase in bandwidth usage. However, I can get upset at Cogent demanding Verizon pay to upgrade their links because Cogent is being paid a ton of money from Netflix and Verizon is not being paid by Netflix.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The ISP is already being paid by their subscribers for that traffic, why should they be allowed to double-dip? If you look at it like a phone call, you're suggesting telcos get paid three times: each end should pay their telco for the minutes they use, and then the calling party should also additionally pay the receiving telco a second time for the minutes the recipient used. I consider Netflix a special exception to the rules only because Netflix requires so much data. I am under the impression that Netflix has caused a lot problems and required upgrades for ISPs, is that wrong? VVV If the upgrades were already complete, then I should theoretically be able to watch Netflix in better than 240p at any time with minimal buffering. Either my ISP (Cox) sucks or hasn't upgraded yet. Not Wolverine fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Crotch Fruit posted:I consider Netflix a special exception to the rules only because Netflix requires so much data. I am under the impression that Netflix has caused a lot problems and required upgrades for ISPs, is that wrong? Upgrades that should have already been done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Isn't the Comcast / Netflix deal basically Netflix used to pay cogent to carry the traffic to Comcast, and now they're paying Comcast directly? Assuming the costs are in the same ballpark I don't see this being as huge a deal as it's being made out to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
It does make sense to peer/connect with networks closer to your consumers from a content delivery perspective, so this move makes sense for Netflix to improve/maintain their customers' experience and subscriptions. They've just cut out a middleman transit network, at the cost of now having to set up agreements with every residential ISP and severely weakening their bargaining position, but it was either that or lose customers. In addition to the traditional model of setting up private peering with consumer ISPs, Netflix tried to build out their CDN with free colo for their cache boxes from the ISPs in exchange for lower transit bandwidth consumption. That strategy would've worked better if there was any real competition in the residential ISP market, because the ISPs would be trying to deliver the content their users request (and are paying to have delivered) faster than the others. It probably worked with smaller ISPs (which, in general, aren't also content companies) for whom 4U, a few amps, and a 10Gb port in their POP ended up being less expensive than upgrading transit links or even setting up private peering with Netflix itself. It probably would've worked even for larger ISPs like Comcast if they had any real competition as an ISP, and weren't also directly competing against Netflix itself as a content company. It'd be really nice for both consumers and next-gen content companies like Netflix if Internet access became a public utility and there was some sort of CLEC/line sharing framework for ISPs, but the cable companies are (predictably) trying to stay relevant and prevent competition. We can hope that the FCC will push things that way, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Alereon posted:The ISP is already being paid by their subscribers for that traffic, why should they be allowed to double-dip? If you look at it like a phone call, you're suggesting telcos get paid three times: each end should pay their telco for the minutes they use, and then the calling party should also additionally pay the receiving telco a second time for the minutes the recipient used.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
adorai posted:They aren't double dipping. Netflix added Comcast as an upstream ISP for less money than they were paying cogent to be an ISP. There is likely an agreement that traffic that Netflix sends directly to Comcast won't leave the Comcast network, but either way, there is no more double dip than there is when I download a movie from bittorrent from another subscriber of my ISP. Exactly. Netflix is already paying somebody to carry that traffic to Comcast. Now they're just paying Comcast directly for that portion of the traffic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
I think some of you are missing the big issue here: Comcast is one of the biggest ISPs in the US. Netflix NEEDS to peer directly with them to ensure that they can reliably reach all of their customers, which is around 30 million customers (keep in mind, the actual number of people using comcast is likely 2-3 times that number). Comcast is a content provider, as well as a content carrier, who competes directly with Netflix. As such, they can raise prices as they deem fit and Netflix will have no choice but to pay whatever they want. In this way, it effectively circumvents Net Neutrality by forcing a competing company to potentially pay more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
You're still forgetting A) Netflix takes up up to 30% of all the transfer in America at times B) Significant portions of Netflix's catalog is NBC Universal properties, which is to say Comcast properties You're also ignoring that this is cutting significant money out of their current peering agreements, and that apparently Netflix or their current peering partner was so incompetent at arranging agreements that they had to switch to direct peering to Comcast in the first place. And you're throwing in the frankly utterly unfunded assumption that because you hate Comcast, they're going to charge Netflix eleventy bajillion dollars for peering soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Netflix didn't choose to pay Comcast for direct connectivity because it would save them money, Comcast used an array of tactics to degrade the experience for Netflix subscribers until Netflix agreed to pay them to stop. Netflix's traffic volumes are not relevant since Comcast subscribers already pay for that traffic. If Comcast is having trouble making their usage-based pricing model work out they should probably fix that, though I think their financials indicate they are not in fact having any problems with this. My heart is also warmed by your faith in the inherent goodness and generosity of Comcast that they will not exploit this one-sided relationship with Netflix, who is their best-bud partner and definitely not a competitor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
you ate my cat posted:Isn't the Comcast / Netflix deal basically Netflix used to pay cogent to carry the traffic to Comcast, and now they're paying Comcast directly? Assuming the costs are in the same ballpark I don't see this being as huge a deal as it's being made out to be. Until Comcast & Netflix raise prices on their customers and make up excuses for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Netflix didn't choose to pay Comcast for direct connectivity because it would save them money, Comcast used an array of tactics to degrade the experience for Netflix subscribers until Netflix agreed to pay them to stop. Netflix's traffic volumes are not relevant since Comcast subscribers already pay for that traffic. If Comcast is having trouble making their usage-based pricing model work out they should probably fix that, though I think their financials indicate they are not in fact having any problems with this. My heart is also warmed by your faith in the inherent goodness and generosity of Comcast that they will not exploit this one-sided relationship with Netflix, who is their best-bud partner and definitely not a competitor. Netflix's current peering partners' own agreements with Comcast did not include enough to handle the Netflix traffic, it's as simple as that. In particular, Level 3 and Comcast have had ongoing issues with each other that heavily involved Netflix's traffic: http://www.telecompetitor.com/behind-the-level-3-comcast-peering-settlement/ Comcast subscribers do not, in fact, pay for that traffic, otherwise there wouldn't be the peering issue! This is what happens when a service takes over 30% of internet traffic in the country, poorly manages its peering agreements, and then gets pushed back by just about every ISP in the country. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Netflix's current peering partners' own agreements with Comcast did not include enough to handle the Netflix traffic, it's as simple as that. In particular, Level 3 and Comcast have had ongoing issues with each other that heavily involved Netflix's traffic: http://www.telecompetitor.com/behind-the-level-3-comcast-peering-settlement/ quote:Comcast subscribers do not, in fact, pay for that traffic, otherwise there wouldn't be the peering issue! Install Windows posted:This is what happens when a service takes over 30% of internet traffic in the country, poorly manages its peering agreements, and then gets pushed back by just about every ISP in the country. Alereon fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Yes, threatening to depeer networks that carry Netflix traffic is one of the ways that Comcast has interfered with Netflix's ability to deliver competing content to Comcast customers. Threatening to depeer networks that are not honoring the peering contracts is actually exactly how peering arrangements are meant to work. Alereon posted:It is an interesting idea that Comcast should get paid a second time for the traffic their subscribers are already paying for because they want to be, but I don't think I can agree with that. Please explain where Comcast is asking to "be paid a second time". Alereon posted:It's funny how the first link you posted points out that mainly Comcast and Verizon are causing significant issues, and those are the two companies that give net neutrality legislation a reason to exist. They're "causing problems" in that they have the most peering issues from Netflix's setup at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Threatening to depeer networks that are not honoring the peering contracts is actually exactly how peering arrangements are meant to work. Install Windows posted:Please explain where Comcast is asking to "be paid a second time". In any other context Comcast would be excited about a company contributing to a massive growth in customer usage and justification for customers paying for speed upgrades, especially when they're as willing as Netflix to cooperate by colocating cache boxes and such to reduce network impacts and costs. Comcast suddenly cares because Netflix is FINALLY a real competitor to Comcast's TV business. That's the only reason this is an exceptional case. Alereon fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Alereon posted:You depeer networks that demonstrate limited value or violate peering contracts through abusive routing, both of which are visible as a traffic imbalance. Asymmetric traffic patterns because you're connecting an ISP full of clients (with highly asymmetric throughput) to a backbone provider connected to a shitton of servers is, you know, obviously not a reason to depeer a network. Why is it valid for Comcast to say "whoa whoa whoa you gotta pay us for all this data our customers are downloading!!" versus Netflix saying "whoa whoa whoa you gotta pay us for all this data your customers are downloading!!"? The answer is that Comcast doesn't want their subscribers to get Netflix's service because it impacts their TV revenue. It's valid for Comcast to say this because it's in the agreements they have with all the people they're peering with, the problem was resolved when Netflix agreed to peer directly with Comcast instead of running through other networks. Also Comcast doesn't give poo poo one about direct TV revenue because they've already pulled multiple moves to hedge that revenue such as: 1) Directly driving their internet customers to keep cable tv subscriptions through bundling 2) Investing in and receiving revenue from multiple online media services as Comcast as well as those NBC Universal had joined in 3) Buying NBC Universal so any time you watch anything NBC Universal had even partial rights in, Comcast gets money. Practically the only online video service Comcast can't get money from now is straight up piracy Ok, so, I ask again, where is Comcast getting paid twice? Comcast and the various networks Netflix was peering through were mutually charging varying amounts as part of carrying Netflix traffic as well as other traffic flows, and Netflix was paying those networks directly to distribute. Now they're simply charging Netflix directly, with Netflix paying one more network for transfer.. Comcast's. Probably soon other big ISPs that've been having peering issues will also be arranging direct peering with Netflix, and frankly that's as it should be because Netflix takes up so much of American network capacity. Again, I ask you to consider that for you to access anything online, there already has to be a "paid twice" situation because both ends of the connection need to pay for connection through the middle between each other. To get to Comcast customers, Netflix is already paying someone else to do it for them, they have the option and have now taken it to cut the middleman out, and of course they have to pay their new network provider for that. Alereon posted:In any other context Comcast would be excited about a company contributing to a massive growth in customer usage and justification for customers paying for speed upgrades, especially when they're as willing as Netflix to cooperate by colocating cache boxes and such to reduce network impacts and costs. Comcast suddenly cares because Netflix is FINALLY a real competitor to Comcast's TV business. That's the only reason this is an exceptional case. No they wouldn't? Maybe you missed when they constantly cracked down on torrents et al? Verizon and AT&T each have issues with Netflix even though both of them only offer TV services to a small subset of their subscribers for internet access. Also maybe you're just ignorant here, but do you think colocating edge caches is done for free? Netflix would be paying a good deal of money to place the boxes and be allowed to keep them in place, following on the general way edge caching is handled for other companies. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Alereon posted:You know that when I download a big file on my cellphone and pay T-Mobile a bunch of money for the privilege they do not also get to charge the site I downloaded it from, right? I mean obviously you do, and this situation is no different, so I'm not sure what we disagree on. There is no way any real ISP could make Netflix suck on their network and not take a shitload of customer backlash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Can someone explain the below graph, from here
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
beejay posted:Can someone explain the below graph, from here Overloaded connections at peak usage times dragging down the average speed, the same as for all the other ISPs showing drops since about September.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
That approximately lines up with when Netflix started providing Super HD to everyone, including Comcast customers. Higher file sizes across the same size links leads to a degraded experience for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
adorai posted:There is no way any real ISP could make Netflix suck on their network and not take a shitload of customer backlash. Except when the ISP has a de facto monopoly in the areas it services, it doesn't really have to give any shits about customer backlash. As already established, Netflix is directly competing with Comcast's own content services, so it would seem that Comcast has a motive to passive-aggressively allow the Netflix customer experience on their network degrade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
So some of the ISPs like Google Fiber which are actually going up since September 13 don't have the Super HD or don't suffer the same problems with "Overloaded connections at peak usage times"? Also howcome the overloaded connections at peak usage times only started then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
I just wonder how many of the people upset about Netflix direct peering are aware that Microsoft, Google, and Facebook among others already participate in direct peering with Comcast and other ISPs?beejay posted:So some of the ISPs like Google Fiber which are actually going up since September 13 don't have the Super HD or don't suffer the same problems with "Overloaded connections at peak usage times"? Also howcome the overloaded connections at peak usage times only started then? September is when the peering into most ISPs started to have real problems, and thus drop the average connection speeds. The ISPs without drops since then either had no peering issues, or only minor ones. Cox, Cablevision, and Google Fiber, as you can see, were the only ISPs that had consistent increases in average speed since September.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
beejay posted:Can someone explain the below graph, from here Xbox one came out and the tens of millions of people buying it overloaded netflix.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I just wonder how many of the people upset about Netflix direct peering are aware that Microsoft, Google, and Facebook among others already participate in direct peering with Comcast and other ISPs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I just wonder how many of the people upset about Netflix direct peering are aware that Microsoft, Google, and Facebook among others already participate in direct peering with Comcast and other ISPs? None of those companies are in direct competition with Comcast. Most YouTube traffic on the East Coast is delivered from addresses owned by Level 3, and even then I wouldn't really call YouTube a competitor to Comcast. psydude fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:I just wonder how many of the people upset about Netflix direct peering are aware that Microsoft, Google, and Facebook among others already participate in direct peering with Comcast and other ISPs? It's great from a technical perspective, and will definitely improve the experience of Netflix customers on Comcast's network. I don't think anyone disputes that. What people are upset about is the power differential between the two companies. Comcast basically forced Netflix's hand at the expense of their common customers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 15:56
|
|