|
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 27, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
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 02:23 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
hifi posted:They aren't though? At least, most of them. 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 03:53 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
hifi posted:Can you post a source for this? I've not heard that Netflix has specifically targeted Comcast customers for rate increases. 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.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:Comcast has to pay a transit provider 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.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
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. 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? That's a nice question but since they're absolutely not doing it now they're not getting free service from anyone.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
revmoo posted:Question: 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?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
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. 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 01:54 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
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 05:48 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
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:
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 20:51 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 20:48
|
|
are there really morons who think Netflix doesn't pay for its bandwidth? Charging extra for "fast lanes" is effectively double dipping and
|
LethalGeek posted: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. Because it's a standing practice nearly 20 years old? If your transit provider situation isn't working out for you, buying direct access exists, and paying to place your CDN servers in networks exists. Comcast's internal network keeps up just fine, that's the entire reason buying direct access in makes any sense to Netflix! If the internal network couldn't handle it, Netflix would gain no benefit to doing it. Getting direct access to the network is a service almost all ISPs outright advertise, for its obvious benefits versus going through transit networks. The problems were coming from Netflix taking up massive amounts of the bandwidth share of multiple transit providers which caused and is causing congestion between them and multiple ISPs. Netflix could pay the transit companies more to upgrade links, or they could instead just cut the middle man out entirely and directly hook up, like Microsoft, Google, and others already do. revmoo posted:Jesus. loving. Christ. You really take the cake, you know that? The double-dipping isn't Netflix+Netflix, it's Netflix+Comcast Subscribers. By your logic, every single site on the internet is being double dipped, because everyone has to pay for internet access at home, and websites also need to pay for internet access. I mean seriously, think your definition of "omg double charged" through here, and show how it wouldn't apply to some random guy's Dreamhost account, or to some small town blog with a paywall.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 01:38 |
|
|
LethalGeek posted:This still sounds like it's everyone's fault except an ISP when the ISP's customers actually request data from whatever entity on the Internet. Then suddenly US ISPs start screaming foul when their users actually start using the bandwidth they're paying for. When you use 35% of the nation's bandwidth, it is in fact on you to take responsibility for your massive usage and how it can result in poor service. Almost every other major internet company already pays for direct access or in-network CDNs which mean they have minimalized impacts on standard transit providers and as a result don't have the issues Netflix had by being stubborn about sticking to an access model that fits a company much smaller than they've become. It's the way things are supposed to work! Once you start producing certain sizes and types of traffic loads you're expected to stop using the general purpose transit networks for some or all of your traffic, in order that both the transit network and ISPs can minimize their own costs for the links between each other. computer parts posted:It's an issue with how the internet is set up. To solve the problem the way you want it you'd essentially have to get Comcast to mirror the entire internet, which isn't really feasible. Yes, this. If you want to have really near-to-no chance of congestion, you're pretty much down to paying to run a connection directly to internet backbone lines out to your home, and that's going to cost way more than $80 a month or something.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 21:51
|
|