Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe


Ninja Rope posted:

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.

What the heck are you talking about? They signed the agreement to directly provide connectivity over a month ago. It makes no sense to engage in a free peering agreement with Netflix when Netflix is 99.8% one direction in terms of traffic

Plus it would literally be saving Netflix millions of dollars a year they don't have to pay to transit providers for absolutely no benefit to Comcast. Why should Netflix get to be the one company in the world that gets to have direct connectivity for free, but everyone else has to pay Comcast or regular transit providers? Why should Netflix get free access to Comcast's network if Comcast's residential subscribers can't get free access?

The whole reason transit providers can and do get free or very cheap (proportionately) access to ISP networks is that they provide access for the ISP's customers to a bunch of places they want to go. It is ludicrous to expect that same thing to be granted to a single source that doesn't even take any sort of uploads (something like a major cloud storage company with much more symmetrical pattern might be granted that privilege, but likely only if it became an official partner of the ISP in question).

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 01:23 on May 13, 2014

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

hifi
Jul 25, 2012



Install Windows posted:

Because they're Comcast customers?

They aren't though? At least, most of them.

e:

Install Windows posted:

What the heck are you talking about? They signed the agreement to directly provide connectivity over a month ago. It makes no sense to engage in a free peering agreement with Netflix when Netflix is 99.8% one direction in terms of traffic

Plus it would literally be saving Netflix millions of dollars a year they don't have to pay to transit providers for absolutely no benefit to Comcast. Why should Netflix get to be the one company in the world that gets to have direct connectivity for free, but everyone else has to pay Comcast or regular transit providers? Why should Netflix get free access to Comcast's network if Comcast's residential subscribers can't get free access?

The whole reason transit providers can and do get free or very cheap (proportionately) access to ISP networks is that they provide access for the ISP's customers to a bunch of places they want to go. It is ludicrous to expect that same thing to be granted to a single source that doesn't even take any sort of uploads (something like a major cloud storage company with much more symmetrical pattern might be granted that privilege, but likely only if it became an official partner of the ISP in question).

It isn't just peering though, it's Netflix's option of free servers too, which Comcast didn't want to use.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe


hifi posted:

They aren't though? At least, most of them.

e:


It isn't just peering though, it's Netflix's option of free servers too, which Comcast didn't want to use.

Only Comcast users are paying for the "extra costs" that are actually less than what Netflix was paying and at higher reliability...

Yes Comcast did not want to give Netflix free or discounted data hookups, power, and rackspace in their data facilities. Most ISPs don't, for that matter, in-network CDNs almost always have to pay.

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:53 on May 13, 2014

hifi
Jul 25, 2012



Install Windows posted:

Only Comcast users are paying for the "extra costs" that are actually less than what Netflix was paying and at higher reliability...

Can you post a source for this? I've not heard that Netflix has specifically targeted Comcast customers for rate increases.

Install Windows posted:

Yes Comcast did not want to give Netflix free or discounted data hookups, power, and rackspace in their data facilities. Most ISPs don't, for that matter, in-network CDNs almost always have to pay.

Actually multiple ISPs have actually participated in Netflix's peering program though, it's in the link I posted.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe


hifi posted:

Can you post a source for this? I've not heard that Netflix has specifically targeted Comcast customers for rate increases.


Actually multiple ISPs have actually participated in Netflix's peering program though, it's in the link I posted.

Netflix hasn't targeted ANY existing customers for rate increases. Netflix has also been planning rate increases for a while.

"Multiple" have. Most haven't, and definitely not the ISPs used by most internet users in the US.

Ninja Rope
Oct 22, 2005

Wee.


Install Windows posted:

Plus it would literally be saving Netflix millions of dollars a year they don't have to pay to transit providers for absolutely no benefit to Comcast.

Comcast has to pay a transit provider to receive traffic. If they peer directly, Comcast saves a significant amount of money.

Install Windows posted:

Why should Netflix get to be the one company in the world that gets to have direct connectivity for free, but everyone else has to pay Comcast or regular transit providers?

Comcast peers for free with a number of organizations. They specifically don't peer for free with Netflix because they can squeeze money out of them.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe


Ninja Rope posted:

Comcast has to pay a transit provider to receive traffic.
No. Nearly all transit providers oare either settlement-free with Comcast or they pay Comcast for Comcast to receive traffic.

Ninja Rope posted:

If they peer directly, Comcast saves a significant amount of money.

Only true in so far as it staves off having to upgrade the links with transit providers for a time, but definitely not in the long run. Getting more money from the contract they've already signed over a month ago doesn't really count as a "savings" it's just plain revenue.

Ninja Rope posted:

Comcast peers for free with a number of organizations. They specifically don't peer for free with Netflix because they can squeeze money out of them.

Nearly all of those organizations are major transit providers needed to reach the wider internet. None of them that aren't major transit providers are pullling the kind of bandwidth and asymmetry Netflix does.

The big boys in internet business have been paying for direct network access to major ISPs the way Netflix is just starting to do for years. Microsoft started paying for direct connections and hosted servers back in the 90s to help ensure Windows Update would stay available and fast, for example.

sanchez
Feb 26, 2003


Install Windows posted:

None of them that aren't major transit providers are pullling the kind of bandwidth and asymmetry Netflix does.

Netflix's response to that is, if they used P2P and their customers uploaded as much as they downloaded, basically doubling their usage, would that be legitimate peering and therefore allow free interconnection?

Netflix is starting to talk more and more about a P2P model. It could be just a negotiating tactic, but the ISP's would be screwed if they actually implemented it.

biznatchio
Mar 31, 2001



Buglord

Install Windows posted:

Nearly all of those organizations are major transit providers needed to reach the wider internet. None of them that aren't major transit providers are pullling the kind of bandwidth and asymmetry Netflix does.

So what? Why does it matter that the traffic is asymmetrical? Why should Comcast get to say "you should pay us extra because you're transferring so much data through our network" and Netflix not be able to say "you should pay us because you request so much data from us"? It's not like Netflix is just blasting the data into Comcast's network blindly -- the data is going there because Comcast's users want it.

It's like getting mad at McDonald's because you're fat.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe


biznatchio posted:

So what? Why does it matter that the traffic is asymmetrical? Why should Comcast get to say "you should pay us extra because you're transferring so much data through our network" and Netflix not be able to say "you should pay us because you request so much data from us"? It's not like Netflix is just blasting the data into Comcast's network blindly -- the data is going there because Comcast's users want it.

It's like getting mad at McDonald's because you're fat.

Because almost literally every company who starts directly providing connections straight to internal network, who isn't themselves a transit provider, and especially when they're highly asymmetrical, pays the ISPs. Why should Netflix get to do it for free if Google, Microsoft, and Apple have to pay? What makes Netflix so special that only they deserve it?


sanchez posted:

Netflix's response to that is, if they used P2P and their customers uploaded as much as they downloaded, basically doubling their usage, would that be legitimate peering and therefore allow free interconnection?

Netflix is starting to talk more and more about a P2P model. It could be just a negotiating tactic, but the ISP's would be screwed if they actually implemented it.

That's a nice question but since they're absolutely not doing it now they're not getting free service from anyone.

FatCow
Apr 22, 2002
I MAP THE FUCK OUT OF PEOPLE


Install Windows posted:

Because almost literally every company who starts directly providing connections straight to internal network, who isn't themselves a transit provider, and especially when they're highly asymmetrical, pays the ISPs. Why should Netflix get to do it for free if Google, Microsoft, and Apple have to pay? What makes Netflix so special that only they deserve it?

People like Netflix, don't like Comcast and base all their opinions on that. It's basically Comcast v Level 3 all over again. There is nothing terribly unusual about the Comcast/Netflix deal.

And the reason that the network who sends more traffic pays is because most traffic on the Internet (there are exceptions to this) is 'hot potato' routed. This means that the traffic gets handed off close to where it originated, therefore the receiving network usually has to carry the packets a longer distance than the sending network. If the traffic levels are balanced then this isn't a big deal because everyone is 'spending' roughly the same to carry the traffic. If the traffic levels are not balanced than the guy who receives more has to build more network.

revmoo
May 25, 2006

#basta


Question:

Why should Netflix have to pay for Comcast's bandwidth when Comcast's customers already did?

Edward_Lapine
Jan 21, 2011

I thought you were actually gay, I mean...
So did I, for a bit, but then I found out about the prohibitive standards of hygiene, and all that DANCING!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ty-on-internet/
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/t...wpsrc=AG0003336 (mobile link)

Washington Post

"FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet"

quote:


The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.

The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.

The proposal is not a final rule, but the vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers. The FCC will now open the proposal to a total 120 days of public comment. Final rules, aimed for the end of the year, could be rewritten after the agency reviews the public comments.

After weeks of public outcry over the proposal, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the agency would not allow for unfair, or "commercially unreasonable," business practices. He wouldn't accept, for instance, practices that leave a consumer with slower downloads of some Web sites than what the consumer paid for from their Internet service provider.

He said his plan asks whether paid prioritization should be banned outright, but he still moved forward with a proposal allowing new business arrangements between Internet service providers--such a AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner Cable--and Web content providers, such as Facebook, Google and online startups.

"There is one Internet. It must be fast, it must be robust, and it must be open," Wheeler said. "The prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable."

Such business models have drawn fierce criticism from investors, startups and big Silicon Valley firms. They say smaller companies that can't afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers.

Even one of the Democratic commissioners who voted yes on Thursday expressed some misgivings about how the proposal had been handled.

"I would have done this differently. I would have taken the time to consider the future," said Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, who said the proposal can't allow for clear fast lanes for the most privileged companies. She said she supported a proposal allowing the agency to consider questions on how it could prevent certain Web sites from being blocked, in addition to figuring out the overall oversight of broadband Internet providers.

"I believe the process that got us to rulemaking today was flawed," she said. "I would have preferred a delay."

Wheeler's proposal is part of a larger "net neutrality" plan that forbids Internet service providers from outright blocking Web sites. And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers. The agency said it had developed a "multifaceted dispute resolution process" on enforcement.

But consumer advocates doubt the FCC can effectively enforce anti-competitive practices or ensure consumers aren't stuck with fewer choices or poorer service. They note that the FCC will only investigate complaints brought to them, and many small companies and consumers don't have resources to alert the agency.

One proposal that consumer groups applauded was on the open question of whether the government should redefine broadband Internet as a public utility, like phone service, which would come with much more oversight from the FCC.

"Agencies almost always change their rules from the initial proposal -- that is why we have a whole notice and comment period, so that the agency can hear from the public and be educated into making the right decision (or at least the least bad decision)," said Harold Feld, a vice president at Public Knowledge, a media and technology policy public interest group. "Do not freak about the tentative conclusion and proposed rules."

The next phase will be four months of public comments, after which the commissioners will vote again on redrafted rules that are meant to take into account public opinion. But the enactment of final rules faces significant challenges.

The proposal has sparked a massive fight between two of the most powerful industries in the country — on one side, Silicon Valley, and on the other, companies such as Verizon and AT&T that built the pipes delivering Web content to consumers’ homes. The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers.
(bold emphasis mine)

I just discovered this thread, but I found this earlier today and thought it may be relevant to the Net Neutrality Thread in SH/SC. Don't read the comment section, there isn't much valuable information there.

Edward_Lapine fucked around with this message at 18:04 on May 15, 2014

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe


revmoo posted:

Question:

Why should Netflix have to pay for Comcast's bandwidth when Comcast's customers already did?

They're paying for their own bandwidth to Comcast directly since they are connecting directly, instead of paying a company like level 3 or cogent for the bandwidth to Comcast through those networks.

Why should Netflix get to not pay when companies like Google do pay and have paid for years? Indeed, why aren't you upset that Transit network companies charge their clients?

revmoo
May 25, 2006

#basta


Install Windows posted:

They're paying for their own bandwidth to Comcast directly since they are connecting directly, instead of paying a company like level 3 or cogent for the bandwidth to Comcast through those networks.

That makes no sense. Comcast customers aren't paying to connect to Comcast's LAN, they're paying to connect to the Internet.

wwb
Aug 17, 2004



More like netflix was paying l3 and especially cogent for bandwidth and they started saturating the interconnects with major residential ISPs. L3 and/or Cogent asked Comcast to add some more ports, Comcast said "uhm, this is really moving away from being peering fast and we aren't wiring up any more, show me the money, k, thx, bye." Things finally got bad enough for netflix that they cut out the middleman and bought the ports from comcast (actually first verizon then comcast) themselves for an undisclosed but certainly massive sum.

Really the only part I've got a problem with here is the undisclosed bit -- that is how you get discriminatory practices. If we put that out in the open we'd be able to understand what the price of a byte at the interconnects is and the market could work itself out.

As for Tom's statement today I think the big trick is measurement -- everyone gloms on to megabits but it probabably matters more how quickly and smoothly those bits get delivered than absolute numbers beyond a certain point.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe


revmoo posted:

That makes no sense. Comcast customers aren't paying to connect to Comcast's LAN, they're paying to connect to the Internet.

No, you make no sense.

Before, Netflix paid to get content into Comcast by paying several transit providers, which have included Level 3, Cogent, and others.

Now Netflix has stopped paying them, and instead pays Comcast to get into Comcast, since they have a direct connection.

They were paying before, they are paying now, why should they get it for free? They never had it free before.

wwb posted:

More like netflix was paying l3 and especially cogent for bandwidth and they started saturating the interconnects with major residential ISPs. L3 and/or Cogent asked Comcast to add some more ports, Comcast said "uhm, this is really moving away from being peering fast and we aren't wiring up any more, show me the money, k, thx, bye." Things finally got bad enough for netflix that they cut out the middleman and bought the ports from comcast (actually first verizon then comcast) themselves for an undisclosed but certainly massive sum.

Really the only part I've got a problem with here is the undisclosed bit -- that is how you get discriminatory practices. If we put that out in the open we'd be able to understand what the price of a byte at the interconnects is and the market could work itself out.

As for Tom's statement today I think the big trick is measurement -- everyone gloms on to megabits but it probabably matters more how quickly and smoothly those bits get delivered than absolute numbers beyond a certain point.

The thing to keep in mind is that ISPs have been selling direct access since the 90s, so most large Internet companies have already been paying for similar service as Netflix finally is, especially services like YouTube.

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 00:54 on May 16, 2014

god this blows
Mar 13, 2003



The problem with peering to someone like Comcast is that it will very rarely be equal. It's hard to get as much data from Comcast as you send to them when the actual consumers of data have a 5x ratio of download compared to upload. I know that Comcast does have content that people view but I highly doubt it's more than people request from elsewhere.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe


Comcast provides business hosting services and there's still plenty of P2P inter-ISP traffic. Additionally a lot of services already pay the costs for within-network cdn service or direct access for high bandwidth services.

All this stuff means a lot more balanced traffic out to transit networks than you might expect, and similar things happen at most major ISPs.

ExcessBLarg!
Aug 31, 2001


Install Windows posted:

Because almost literally every company who starts directly providing connections straight to internal network, who isn't themselves a transit provider, and especially when they're highly asymmetrical, pays the ISPs. Why should Netflix get to do it for free if Google, Microsoft, and Apple have to pay? What makes Netflix so special that only they deserve it?
The Netflix/Comcast debacle isn't about the direction of traffic or even really traffic asymmetry, because, from a network standpoint, Netflix has no transit customers; anyone who subscribes to Netflix's services must do so through an ISP. Discussions on traffic ratios only really make sense in the context where the two entities have roughly the same number of transit customers and the ratio is a measure of customer imbalance.

For example, you could imagine a scenario where, in addition to providing video streaming, Netflix also provides the world's most insanely popular residential cloud-backup service, such that uploads from Comcast users could even match video streaming downloads, but the situation doesn't fundamentally change. In such a scenario, even though Netflix and Comcast should "want" to interconnect (there's traffic symmetry), the fact that all of the traffic is the result of actions from Comcast-connected customers means that Comcast still can dictate the situation, since, without their customers, Netflix would have no revenue.

Truth is, it's not the 90s anymore where there was healthy competition in both the ISP and content-provider spaces. Really, the Netflix/Comcast debacle is about which company wields greater influence due to exclusivity and market share--Comcast with its exclusive broadband markets, or Netflix with its exclusive catalog of streaming content.

See, Comcast accounts for 25% of the residential broadband market, and in many markets where Comcast provides service, they are either the sole (monopoly) ISP or are part of duopoly. Thus, Netflix is absolutely dependent upon Comcast to provide access to a quarter of Netflix's own subscribers. Conversely, if streaming were a highly competitive market (much as the CDN market was/is), Comcast can say to Netflix "pay us for interconnection or your subscribers' service will suffer greatly", and Netflix's options are either to (i) pay Comcast, (ii) pay someone else to pay Comcast (the traditional CDN model), or (iii) do nothing, at which point Netflix's subscribers get angry and switch to one of Netflix's competitors for content, resulting in a loss of revenue. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what happened in the CDN world, i.e., if Akamai refused to pay Comcast for interconnect someone else would and take Akamai's customer share, so Akamai had to pay up or lose revenue.

Thing is, Netflix themselves are a very popular streaming provider (32% of streaming market), and due to licensing arrangements and such, has a healthy catalog of exclusive content. Thus, the streaming video market is competitive, but not highly competitive. So, if Comcast was less of service-provider monopoly than they are, and if Netflix was more of a content-provider monopoly than they are, you could imagine that Comcast customers would absolutely be willing to (and could) switch ISPs to access Netflix content. That would actually make Comcast and other ISPs dependent on Netflix's content for their own revenue, effectively turning the tables, even allowing Netflix to demand that Comcast pay for interconnection with the threat of lost revenue from Comcast's customers switching ISPs.

So honestly, the reason why the Netflix situation is different is because, as a content provider, they are just large enough and do have enough clout that they do hold influence over public opinion and possibly even legislators. Which is where we are now.

ExcessBLarg! fucked around with this message at 04:40 on May 16, 2014

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe


The Netflix "debate" is about people under the mistaken impression that giant companies somehow don't or shouldn't have to pay for network access unless a mean ol' ISP bullies them, and getting angry at finding out that yes you have to pay for internet access.

The Netflix situation is NOT different: most major online streaming sites have been engaging in paid direct network or paid in-border CDN services for years. That, or they managed to get workable transit agreements in the first place. Except Netflix whined about it. I think the funniest part is how so many people constantly harp on Comcast over it even though Verizon was the first Netflix was mad at, and secured direct connection deal first as well.

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:48 on May 16, 2014

ExcessBLarg!
Aug 31, 2001


Install Windows posted:

The Netflix "debate" is about people under the mistaken impression that giant companies somehow don't or shouldn't have to pay for network access unless a mean ol' ISP bullies them, and getting angry at finding out that yes you have to pay for internet access.
Nobody here thinks that "Netflix shouldn't have to pay for 'Internet access'".

What people are concerned about is that Comcast, Verizon, and other massive monopoly-holding ISPs might have too much leverage in these opaque, unregulated interconnect agreements.

Install Windows posted:

The Netflix situation is NOT different: most major online streaming sites have been engaging in paid direct network or paid in-border CDN services for years.
Who are all effectively forced to pay whatever the ISP demands, capped only at the cost of going through another transit provider (who themselves run into settlement disputes). Just because Netflix is the one to make noise doesn't mean Akamai et al. is happy with the arrangements. The reason Netflix makes noise is because people have heard of them, and thus, might actually listen.

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe


ExcessBLarg! posted:

Nobody here thinks that "Netflix shouldn't have to pay for 'Internet access'".



Many people have stated Netflix shouldn't have to pay.

As to the rest again, Netflix is just whining. Sure all the businesses would like to pay less, every business wants to pay as little as possible. It doesn't mean they're fighting for something like net neutrality or even transparency.

Making an Internet business inherently means having to contend with many greedy businesses who stand between you and potential customers, and unsurprisingly when you get to the point of using one third of a nation's bandwidth you can't use all the cost saving methods a smaller business could survive.

a neurotic ai
Mar 22, 2012


Just nationalise the ISPs and be done with it. Seriously, it's a mess.

revmoo
May 25, 2006

#basta


Install Windows posted:

Many people have stated Netflix shouldn't have to pay.

No fucker, goddamn you are dense as a loving brick. NETFLIX ALREADY PAYS FOR ITS OWN INTERNET!

The problem is that Comcast was using anti-competitive tactics to restrict traffic to Netflix's provider in an attempt to extort more cash. Here, since you don't seem to be very informed on this subject even though you post prolifically about it:

http://arstechnica.com/information-...ing-for-months/

wwb
Aug 17, 2004



Ocrassus posted:

Just nationalise the ISPs and be done with it. Seriously, it's a mess.

Yeah because then they will do a great job getting stuff done. Like the post office.

sudo rm -rf
Aug 2, 2011


$ mv fullcommunism.sh
/america
$ cd /america
$ ./fullcommunism.sh




wwb posted:

Yeah because then they will do a great job getting stuff done. Like the post office.

What's wrong with the post office? Doesn't the rest of the domestic shipping industry basically rely on the USPS for areas that aren't in any immediate urban locations?

SamDabbers
May 26, 2003



wwb posted:

Yeah because then they will do a great job getting stuff done. Like the post office.

The post office does a fine job of delivering letters and packages in a timely fashion at reasonable rates

LethalGeek
Nov 4, 2009



I'm sorry am I in bizzaro world where the major US ISPs aren't greedy poorly run companies trying to double dip on the claim that they don't have the capacity they purposefully don't bother expanding and are trying to screw everyone?

revmoo
May 25, 2006

#basta


SamDabbers posted:

The post office does a fine job of delivering letters and packages in a timely fashion at reasonable rates

If we continue this decline, we'll have to start using USPS Media Mail to move data around the country.

EDIT: I wonder if Netflix could somehow use the USPS to deliver its content....

Sneeze Party
Apr 26, 2002

These are, by far, the most brilliant photographs that I have ever seen, and you are a GOD AMONG MEN.

Toilet Rascal

LethalGeek posted:

I'm sorry am I in bizzaro world where the major US ISPs aren't greedy poorly run companies trying to double dip on the claim that they don't have the capacity they purposefully don't bother expanding and are trying to screw everyone?
This is absolutely at the heart of the issue. I think about the internet in the mid-90s, when many of the internet's users were on dial-up. To me, Comcast squeezing money out of Netflix is something akin to a local ISP demanding that Netflix buy them more 28.8k modems, or demanding money from Netflix in order to upgrade their existing infrastructure from 28.8k to 56k, or some such nonsense.

Comcast has a responsibility to their customers to provide a certain level of service, and to upgrade the equipment on the backend as it becomes necessary. Comcast's customers (or any ISP's customers) pay Comcast, and Comcast has the cash reserves to update infrastructure.

Anybody who says that Comcast's actions aren't anticompetitive is either brainwashed, or a troll. It's hard to tell the two apart.

a neurotic ai
Mar 22, 2012


wwb posted:

Yeah because then they will do a great job getting stuff done. Like the post office.

Idk about you but for me the post office runs just dandy.

Sylink
Apr 17, 2004



are there really morons who think Netflix doesn't pay for its bandwidth? Charging extra for "fast lanes" is effectively double dipping and if you don't see that and think our current monopoly system is great then you must be retarded.

Saw this on reddit but if you feel like feeling like you did something then you can call the FCC and badger them - https://act.freepress.net/call/internet_wheeler_nn/

qwerasdf
Oct 1, 2006
(Eat shit)


revmoo posted:

No fucker, goddamn you are dense as a loving brick. NETFLIX ALREADY PAYS FOR ITS OWN INTERNET!

I don't think anyone claimed that they don't. Do you know how to read?

Netflix wants to go from paying for internet, to not paying for internet.

Shaggar
Apr 26, 2006


Nap Ghost

revmoo posted:

No fucker, goddamn you are dense as a loving brick. NETFLIX ALREADY PAYS FOR ITS OWN INTERNET!

The problem is that Comcast was using anti-competitive tactics to restrict traffic to Netflix's provider in an attempt to extort more cash. Here, since you don't seem to be very informed on this subject even though you post prolifically about it:

http://arstechnica.com/information-...ing-for-months/



Netflix currently pays level3 to send Netflix traffic to Comcast customers.

With this new Comcast connection, Netflix will be paying Comcast to send Netflix traffic to Comcast customers. It will then stop paying level3 for Comcast traffic.

The price it pays to Comcast for access to Comcast customers will be the same or less than what it used to pay to level3 for access to Comcast customers. The quality of service to Netflix's Vomcast customers will be significantly better.

So in the end, after this setup is complete, Netflix will be paying less for their internet then they were before and Netflix customers on Comcast will have better service.

LethalGeek
Nov 4, 2009



Shaggar posted:

Netflix currently pays level3 to send Netflix traffic to Comcast customers.

With this new Comcast connection, Netflix will be paying Comcast to send Netflix traffic to Comcast customers. It will then stop paying level3 for Comcast traffic.

The price it pays to Comcast for access to Comcast customers will be the same or less than what it used to pay to level3 for access to Comcast customers. The quality of service to Netflix's Vomcast customers will be significantly better.

So in the end, after this setup is complete, Netflix will be paying less for their internet then they were before and Netflix customers on Comcast will have better service.

I'm missing the part where Comcast's entire point of existence as an ISP is to get data I request from the Internet and get it to my house. That thing I pay them for. It's not on Netflix or anyone else to deal with the costs Comcast face when I am paying them to do exactly that already.

Edit: This is the even dumber part: the ISP has to, as part of what I'm paying them for, get that data from where ever over their network to my house. If netflix/google/etc is willing to go hey lets skip Level 3 and link directly to your network so we're not paying them. Great everyone saves money (well L3 is out) and the ISP does that one thing it's supposed to do no matter what.

LethalGeek fucked around with this message at 19:50 on May 16, 2014

Nintendo Kid
Aug 4, 2011

by Smythe


revmoo posted:

No fucker, goddamn you are dense as a loving brick. NETFLIX ALREADY PAYS FOR ITS OWN INTERNET!

Yeah except no. They canceled the portions of their contracts for buying transit to Verizon and Comcast through other networks, and instead spend about the same money on direct access to Verizon and Comcast. They aren't being doublecharged or anything.

n0n0 posted:

Anybody who says that Comcast's actions aren't anticompetitive is either brainwashed, or a troll. It's hard to tell the two apart.

So you're mad that everyone else pays too right? You were protesting it when YouTube first got big enough to start buying CDNs inside network boundaries and direct access?

Sylink posted:

are there really morons who think Netflix doesn't pay for its bandwidth? Charging extra for "fast lanes" is effectively double dipping and

AND that's not what's loving happening. Jesus Christ, Netflix STOPPED PAYING ANYONE BESIDES COMCAST AND VERIZON FOR ACCESS TO COMCAST AND VERIZON. What's it going to take to get this through people's heads?

How do all of you people post on a tech forum for a decade and not know that companies routinely pay for direct access or CDN hosting with ISPs? True story, Microsoft's been buying what you're now trying to paint as "Evil Fast Lanes" starting in the late 90s in response to Windows Update servers not being able to serve customers properly due to congestion issues, making them among the first major companies to have direct access or in-network CDNs or both with most major ISPs.

LethalGeek posted:

I'm missing the part where Comcast's entire point of existence as an ISP is to get data I request from the Internet and get it to my house. That thing I pay them for. It's not on Netflix or anyone else to deal with the costs Comcast face when I am paying them to do exactly that already.

Sorry, Netflix does have to pay to get data out to networks, just like you have to. Why the hell do you care so much about Netflix dropping transit providers in favor of doing what all the big internet companies do?

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:51 on May 16, 2014

odiv
Jan 12, 2003



I did literally think that Netflix still had to pay for whatever access they were paying before plus the Comcast stuff, so thanks for clearing that up.

LethalGeek
Nov 4, 2009



Install Windows posted:

Sorry, Netflix does have to pay to get data out to networks, just like you have to. Why the hell do you care so much about Netflix dropping transit providers in favor of doing what all the big internet companies do?

So where does Comcast justify making anyone specific pay for access/better access to "their network" when their one function is to connect home users to whatever system on the Internet that user goes looking for? If their internal network can't keep up with all their customer's requests that is their problem alone.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

revmoo
May 25, 2006

#basta


Install Windows posted:

Yeah except no. They canceled the portions of their contracts for buying transit to Verizon and Comcast through other networks, and instead spend about the same money on direct access to Verizon and Comcast. They aren't being doublecharged or anything.

Jesus. loving. Christ. You really take the cake, you know that? The double-dipping isn't Netflix+Netflix, it's Netflix+Comcast Subscribers.

I give up.

  • Locked thread