|
Is having a "fast lane" for traffic always a bad idea? Years ago cable was delivered over analog signals over cable. Over time, the signal became digital. However, one important thing to note, is that the signal was ip multicast-like. Multicasting is very efficient. If a client wants content, it subscribes to an endpoint. The switches along the way become subscribed. Any further clients that subscribe can piggyback over the data stream being sent out to other subscribed endpoints. It's a one to many model. Along came Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and so on. Consumers are switching to obtaining content from unicast sources. Strictly from a technological standpoint, this is horribly inefficient. Each endpoint requires a separate data stream from the source. Of course there are advantages - any content, any time, when you want it. However, it is burying the internet, mainly the local exchange carriers and the major telco organizations that form peering agreements. Rather than upgrade the networks, they fight, and let the quality of service slide. ISPs are also throttling. As a stopgap, companies like Netflix are forming agreements with communications provides like Comcast and Verizon to insert content caching servers into ISP's data centers to restore a similar networking model to multicast. People are up in arms about this, saying it creates an internet "fast lane" I'm not at all opposed to it, it's a sane technological solution that improves efficiency. However, I think it's important that it not be done behind closed doors, there needs to be some level of transparency, and limitations on exclusivity. We can't have, say, Comcast, paying off Netflix for exclusive access to their caching servers. There needs to be some sort of partner-agnosticism enforcing ground rules to ensure fairness to both consumers and competing ISPS. (HAH..ISP Competition...) That's my two cents.
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Caching servers and net neutrality are different things. Netflix already had programs to partner with ISPs and place cache boxes on their network, Comcast simply wanted to be paid in order to not throttle Netflix traffic. It's true that Netflix and other services drive higher bandwidth consumption and infrastructure costs for carriers, but its also true that they are what are driving people to subscribe to high-speed Internet and upgrade to higher speed tiers that they pay carriers for. Carriers are not losing money, they have simply conceived of a way to double-dip and require content providers to pay for the usage that their subscribers are already paying for.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Were any details of the Comcast-Netflix deal announced? That was part of my problem, how do we know Netflix is paying off Comcast? It seems like it should have been a neutral transaction. Comcast saves on bandwidth fees at the cost of a bit of rackspace. Netflix saves on bandwidth fees and provides higher quality of service at the cost of a bit of hardware. It's win win. Is it really a net-neutrality issue, or just normal caching hyped to be a net-neutrality issue?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
I think that associating the deal that Netflix has made with Comcast and Verizon to peer directly with them is a distraction from the net neutrality fight. Netflix merely cut out the middle man who was having a peering fight with Comcast, they did not pay for a "fast lane". It's analogous to me having a faster connection to my next door neighbor than I do to someone halfway around the world -- there are less hops and less chances for a poor interconnection. I do not believe that a carrier should be able to intentionally throttle traffic from one source who is not paying for privilege, or to give priority to a partner who is paying for priority access on their network. The two statements above may seem to be at odds, but it is the difference between having a private fast lane on a 30 minute commute vs moving next door to your most regular destination. They both get you there faster but one is obviously more efficient without being a detriment to others.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
SSH IT ZOMBIE posted:Were any details of the Comcast-Netflix deal announced? That was part of my problem, how do we know Netflix is paying off Comcast? It seems like it should have been a neutral transaction. Comcast saves on bandwidth fees at the cost of a bit of rackspace. Netflix saves on bandwidth fees and provides higher quality of service at the cost of a bit of hardware. It's win win. I don't see how it's a neutral transaction when the servers are probably provided by netflix and hosted in comcast centers (netflix loses here), and netflix is paying comcast. Maybe someone knows a bit more about netflix's primary isp's situation, but it's possible that they could be getting an incredible deal for whatever difference in traffic there is between their current levels and pre-comcast deal levels, and now they are forced into the comcast "peering" situation.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
hifi posted:I don't see how it's a neutral transaction when the servers are probably provided by netflix and hosted in comcast centers (netflix loses here), and netflix is paying comcast. Maybe someone knows a bit more about netflix's primary isp's situation, but it's possible that they could be getting an incredible deal for whatever difference in traffic there is between their current levels and pre-comcast deal levels, and now they are forced into the comcast "peering" situation.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
You're confusing two scenarios. Net neutrality refers to ISPs throttling bandwidth to various sites unless they pay them money to get not-intentionally-degraded service. This is what happened between Netflix and Comcast. The solution here was that Netflix pays Comcast to not have their traffic throttled, and the manner in which this is currently implemented is by Netflix and Comcast peering directly. Peering is where two companies (Netflix and Comcast) connect their networks directly to each other, meaning no third-party ISP is paid to carry traffic between them. Usually this occurs in locations where the two companies both already have network devices, like in a large datacenter. There is little cost to peering with another company: you might have to buy some cables and another port on your router, but the total cost is negligible compared to paying an ISP monthly to carry your bits. So in this case, Netflix has to pay Comcast to allow both companies to save money by peering directly. That is, without this agreement both Netflix and Comcast need to pay an ISP to connect them. With this agreement, Netflix has to pay Comcast instead of paying an ISP, but Comcast saves money by not having to pay that ISP and makes money from Netflix. They're double-dipping without even taking into account their customers who pay to get access to Netflix. Co-locating a server inside an ISP is similar economically to peering, but is not related to net neutrality and isn't what is occurring between Netflix and Comcast.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:You're confusing two scenarios. Net neutrality refers to ISPs throttling bandwidth to various sites unless they pay them money to get not-intentionally-degraded service. This is what happened between Netflix and Comcast. The solution here was that Netflix pays Comcast to not have their traffic throttled, and the manner in which this is currently implemented is by Netflix and Comcast peering directly.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
My early understandings of net neutrality was in regards to government intervention. People were up in arms because the FCC was coming to the internet. Now it seems everybody is all for net neutrality when a giant content provider teams up with a giant content deliverer to provide faster service, albeit in a way that may inhibit competition and free markets. It's my current understanding that the two issues are still tied together and with net neutrality comes regulations and bureaucracy on a federal level, but less corporate asshatery and market ransoming. Is there a way to find a balance between the two when it comes to technology and the internet?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:It's my current understanding that the two issues are still tied together and with net neutrality comes regulations and bureaucracy on a federal level, but less corporate asshatery and market ransoming. Is there a way to find a balance between the two when it comes to technology and the internet?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
There's no way to prove or disprove that Comcast was throttling Netflix specifically, but reports of Netflix working better over a VPN make it sound as if they were. Even if it was just a peering dispute with Cogent it's a symptom of the same issue, Comcast refusing to fix a problem until they're paid, not by their customers but by a content provider, to do so. Comcast could have solved the Cogent issue by peering directly with Netflix for free but chose not to. While requiring net neutrality wouldn't have solved this if Comcast was not intentionally throttling traffic, it would go a long way against curbing that abuse in the future, especially now that there is a high-profile case of an ISP refusing free peering and profiting from it and other ISPs are following suit.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:Comcast could have solved the Cogent issue by peering directly with Netflix for free but chose not to.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
adorai posted:Comcast should have become an ISP for Netflix, for free? Comcast was already carrying Netflix traffic because Comcast customers were requesting it. They're going to pick up the traffic on one of their peering connections, and the ones it was traversing were over capacity. If you think that Comcast has an obligation to their customers to provide sufficient capacity for the traffic they've paid to be able to send and receive, then it follows that Comcast should've chosen the least expensive of a) upgrade peering links with Cogent, b) peer with Netflix, c) install Netflix cache servers (provided free of charge), or d) some combination of the other options. Since they have no effective competition in the last-mile market, and Netflix competes with their own video service, they chose e) use their captive customers as leverage to force Netflix to pay them too. It's entirely rational, but not necessarily ethical, for Comcast to use whatever leverage they have for their profit, and also for Netflix to avoid losing customers on Comcast's network, but it is a great example of why regulation is needed to ensure competition, so that such abuses aren't the most rational choice. Preventing natural monopolies from using leverage this way seems necessary to achieve that goal. SamDabbers fucked around with this message at 19:32 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
adorai posted:Ensure there is competition among content delivery companies as well as content generation companies. i.e. eliminate local monopolies on fast internet access, which is coming soon enough with the large amounts of fiber going into the ground basically everywhere. I mean I have fiber internet and transparent lan service at some of my branch offices in towns with less than 3000 people. The market penetration is significant. How does installing fiber everywhere ensure would-be startup ISPs fair access to the fiber? Isn't it still owned by the communication providers putting it in?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
SSH IT ZOMBIE posted:How does installing fiber everywhere ensure would-be startup ISPs fair access to the fiber? Isn't it still owned by the communication providers putting it in? Make it so the company putting the lines in can't also provide services over them, and require non-discriminatory wholesale access for all would-be ISPs. Limit the size and scope of the natural monopoly.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
SSH IT ZOMBIE posted:How does installing fiber everywhere ensure would-be startup ISPs fair access to the fiber? Isn't it still owned by the communication providers putting it in? There is nothing stopping you from laying fiber in your own neighborhood and competing with Comcast in the same manner. Apply for carrier status and get super cheap permitting.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
adorai posted:Comcast should have become an ISP for Netflix, for free? Yes. Prior to the deal Comcast was paying to receive Netflix traffic. Peering for free with Netflix not only saves Comcast money but is the thing customers are paying them to do: provide fast access to the whole internet. Even better if it can be done on the cheap and (theoretically) lowering the customer's own bill. That's an upside to being a giant ISP: everyone wants to peer with you for free. adorai posted:There is nothing stopping you from laying fiber in your own neighborhood and competing with Comcast in the same manner. Apply for carrier status and get super cheap permitting. Disregarding the many millions of dollars it costs to lay fiber and the massive interruption to traffic, every city has different right-of-way laws regarding who can lay fiber. Even if you have the money you may be barred from laying cables.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
adorai posted:There is nothing stopping you from laying fiber in your own neighborhood and competing with Comcast in the same manner. Apply for carrier status and get super cheap permitting. The law is actually stopping you from doing this in many places.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
^^^ the law and the $10s of millions you'd need to effectively build and provision it and that is if you got lucky and got customers quickly. In other news, Mozilla has a pretty brilliant idea that could actually have legs and might achieve the very difficult mix of keeping the net fundamentally neutral while not over-regulating things so we get a 2014 version of Ma Bell: https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2014/05/05/protecting-net-neutrality-and-the-open-internet/
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:My early understandings of net neutrality was in regards to government intervention. People were up in arms because the FCC was coming to the internet. Now it seems everybody is all for net neutrality when a giant content provider teams up with a giant content deliverer to provide faster service, albeit in a way that may inhibit competition and free markets. Something about this strikes me as inverted, the ISPs are a company that operates in a highly regulated market. They have wanting to throttle traffic and force big companies to pay for bandwidth prioritization for a long time. As opposed to the end of network neutrality ( an enforced scenario ) being the end of free market - it sounds to me like an opening of the free market concepts for the ISPs. Prioritizing bandwith for their ... customers .. is something they can do, want to do, and big brother has been telling them they cant. The only way it makes sense to keep net neutrality ( to me ) is to change ISPs into utilities like power and water. That would be totally reasonable as well. imho.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
MeramJert posted:The law is actually stopping you from doing this in many places.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Delamination Now http://www.hyperorg.com/misc/delamination.html
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
Level3 put an article up about peering - http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observations-internet-middleman/
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Level3 put an article up about peering - I got a kick out of that. They don't quite come out and say who is not upgrading their capacity, then say the 6 rank dead last in customer satisfaction. And then indicate that broadband providers rank pretty bad in customer satisfaction. Just saying, but not saying.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
SSH IT ZOMBIE posted:I got a kick out of that. They don't quite come out and say who is not upgrading their capacity, then say the 6 rank dead last in customer satisfaction. And then indicate that broadband providers rank pretty bad in customer satisfaction. Just saying, but not saying. quote:Five of those congested peers are in the United States and one is in Europe. There are none in any other part of the world. All six are large Broadband consumer networks with a dominant or exclusive market share in their local market. Level 3 doesn't have to dance around.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Don't like our crappy content bundles (with tons of intrusive ads) and over-saturated Internet links? Then why don't you switch to another broadband provider? What? There are no other broadband providers in your area?  That's too bad! See, we've Our buddies at the FCC would never betray us. Not if they want to continue working in this industry after they leave office. Not if they like money. And they do. Very, very much.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
SamDabbers posted:Don't like our crappy content bundles (with tons of intrusive ads) and over-saturated Internet links? Then why don't you switch to another broadband provider? That reminds me of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
I don't think anybody could really argue against the fact that perhaps it might be reasonable that Netflix, which accounted for a disproportionately huge amount of bandwidth, should pay some for bandwidth. The huge problem is the precedent it sets. I mean can you think of any other industry more suited to negatively take advantage of this than the same people who provide you with TV? Does the basic internet package include gmail? Or is that an extra $2.99. Well it's free for 6 months if you go for the next tier. This might seem weird now, but pretend most people have access to gigabit internet for a flat fee (not inconceivable anymore) and bandwidth tiers become a thing of the past. How else will they make money off you.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Ignoarints posted:I don't think anybody could really argue against the fact that perhaps it might be reasonable that Netflix, which accounted for a disproportionately huge amount of bandwidth, should pay some for bandwidth. That's why Netflix goes out of their way to peer with and provide openconnect boxes to anyone who wants them. It's not in their interest to be a problem for ISPs. Same goes for all of the major CDNs. I get your point though. If the ISP business isn't profitable enough in the common carrier model I suppose Comcast could make some additional money by selling TV shows online?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Ignoarints posted:I don't think anybody could really argue against the fact that perhaps it might be reasonable that Netflix, which accounted for a disproportionately huge amount of bandwidth, should pay some for bandwidth. Netflix definitely already pays for bandwidth. So does the end-user, who is probably paying too much already because yay, near monopolies!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:That's why Netflix goes out of their way to peer with and provide openconnect boxes to anyone who wants them. It's not in their interest to be a problem for ISPs. Same goes for all of the major CDNs. I'm more worried about them restricting access to specific websites and services without some kind of access fee. Basically the way TV is right now, but for the internet. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense at the moment because bandwidth is still the "thing", but I can just hear them foaming at the mouth to be able to do that. I might have been too lenient on the Netflix thing, but I can still see the core point of it even if it is wrong. But I'm way way way more worried about what it means down the road.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Ignoarints posted:I don't think anybody could really argue against the fact that perhaps it might be reasonable that Netflix, which accounted for a disproportionately huge amount of bandwidth, should pay some for bandwidth.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Whether Netflix pays somebody (e.g. Cogent, Level3) for transit, or maintains their own infrastructure to peer with other networks, they're definitely paying for their own bandwidth. The issue here is that broadband providers like Comcast are getting away with ridiculous oversubscription because they have no competition, and are abusing their monopoly position in that area of business to extract fees from content providers with whom they do compete, rather than properly providing the bandwidth they've sold to subscribers.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
I've been to literal shacks in the backwoods of no fewer than 3 countries that have uncapped full-duplex 100 mbit fiber. On all of these connections YouTube runs faster than in the typical mid-sized US city. Of course the bills for those connections were all cheaper even in terms of local wages. I see no way around the fact that cable providers are making record profits. It flies in the face of any assertion that they need to bill more people more money to provide the service that so many other people are doing for a fraction of the cost. When faced with this attack apologists typically point to differences between the markets like density but, setting aside for the moment that many areas of comparable density exist between the US and Japan/Korea/wherever, isn't it all a red herring anyway? Don't record profits indicate money that could be spent to upgrade infrastructure but is not being spent? I'll buy the "it's just so hard being me" excuse when cable companies start to fail like airlines have been and not before. For now it looks like they're on the verge of tearing down the peering model that has made the Internet great just to improve their bottom line.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
SamDabbers posted:Whether Netflix pays somebody (e.g. Cogent, Level3) for transit, or maintains their own infrastructure to peer with other networks, they're definitely paying for their own bandwidth. It's also worth noting that anyone receiving Netflix traffic is also paying for transit to receive it. Peering saves money on both sides and reduces latency.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
SSH IT ZOMBIE posted:Were any details of the Comcast-Netflix deal announced? That was part of my problem, how do we know Netflix is paying off Comcast? It seems like it should have been a neutral transaction. Comcast saves on bandwidth fees at the cost of a bit of rackspace. Netflix saves on bandwidth fees and provides higher quality of service at the cost of a bit of hardware. It's win win. Both sides are winning. Netflix gets higher quality connections to its customers that would be impossible to provide any other way and Comcast expands network capacity without passing costs on to Comcast customers. Netflix customers indirectly pay for the network expansion required to handle Netflix customer usage. This is far superior to all Comcast customers paying for the network expansion required to handle Netflix customer usage which would have been the case if Comcast upgraded their entire network. Its closer to a traditional peering arrangement than caching.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:Both sides are winning. Netflix gets higher quality connections to its customers that would be impossible to provide any other way and Comcast expands network capacity without passing costs on to Comcast customers. Netflix customers indirectly pay for the network expansion required to handle Netflix customer usage. This is far superior to all Comcast customers paying for the network expansion required to handle Netflix customer usage which would have been the case if Comcast upgraded their entire network. Why exactly are Netflix customers required to pay for Comcast's upgrades? Isn't "traditional peering" traditionally free? Couldn't Comcast just have participated in Netflix's Open Connect CDN to get free peering or free servers in their data center?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Peering, compared to transit, is effectively free. Netflix is paying Comcast for something that costs Comcast just a little more than $0, and saves Comcast tens of thousands on transit fees. Netflix is paying Comcast to save money.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:There's no way to prove or disprove that Comcast was throttling Netflix specifically, but reports of Netflix working better over a VPN make it sound as if they were. The VPN system completely bypassed the congested links, that's all there was to it. odiv posted:Netflix definitely already pays for bandwidth. So does the end-user, who is probably paying too much already because yay, near monopolies! And now they're paying less for bandwidth to the company that couldn't provide service and Ninja Rope posted:Peering, compared to transit, is effectively free. Netflix is paying Comcast for something that costs Comcast just a little more than $0, and saves Comcast tens of thousands on transit fees. Netflix is paying Comcast to save money. So you're saying Netflix should get to use a connection to Comcast's networks for free? Why does the multibillion dollar company deserve that and the residential customers don't? SamDabbers posted:Whether Netflix pays somebody (e.g. Cogent, Level3) for transit, or maintains their own infrastructure to peer with other networks, they're definitely paying for their own bandwidth. The issue here is that broadband providers like Comcast are getting away with ridiculous oversubscription because they have no competition, and are abusing their monopoly position in that area of business to extract fees from content providers with whom they do compete, rather than properly providing the bandwidth they've sold to subscribers. Oversubscription has absolutely nothing to do with this, the Comcast internal network is way over needed capacity, and with recent upgrades they've been doing the last mile is also usually well over what's needed for full service. hifi posted:Why exactly are Netflix customers required to pay for Comcast's upgrades? Because they're Comcast customers?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:53 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:So you're saying Netflix should get to use a connection to Comcast's networks for free? Why does the multibillion dollar company deserve that and the residential customers don't? Like I said before, yes. Comcast should take the option that saves money and peer with Netflix. They are refusing to do what is in their customers' best interest and save themselves money while providing a better product because it hurts a (partial) competitor, disregarding that doing so also hurts their customers.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 02:13
|
|