Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 351 posts

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#141

Post by ffk »

valas wrote: post #132
ffk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deal was a paid-peering deal, which would likely drive down Netflix costs. We don't have any information on whether net neutrality was harmed. Hopefully netflix will provide information on this. Peering is a practice where two sides agree to maintain their side of the infrastructure and not charge for metered bandwidth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering

Why do you think it would drive down Netflix costs? In old world there were a dozen of "tier1" providers who would all peer with each other more or less settlement free. It is conceivable that one of these providers (I think it was Cogent in this case) was offering " low rates " to take Netflix traffic and deliver that traffic to Comcast over their settlement free peering. As traffic flow between Cogent and Comcast w…

I agree. I am not arguing that Comcast should be allowed to go unregulated either. I strongly support net neutrality and do not want to see it thrown under the bus.

Assuming it wasn't harmed is also speculation and we should definitely be concerned about the deal and what it means for net neutrality.

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#142

Post by gergles »

santosha wrote: post #103

Not entirely sure why this is such a big deal. Peering agreements happen all the time. Lots of large services peer directly with consumer ISPs because it's cheaper and more efficient than using intermediary transit. This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Comcast is not throttling or discriminating traffic in any way (at least not publicly). This is a peering dispute settlement. Does this affect competitors to Ne…

Comcast is a residential ISP. What possible traffic could there be to flow out of their network, other than requests for other data? By that logic, everyone has to pay to peer with Comcast because "Ha ha, we have all the customers. Darn, it sure is a shame that our customers don't have any data to send to you. Darn it, we really wish we could do free peering, but we just can't, aw, darn it. [cue South Park cable company responses]"

No, what happened was Comcast discovered another place they could fuck over the customer - by charging for peering even though it benefits their customers to not do so, and decided to spin it into some way that makes people feel like Comcast was somehow being injured by Netflix under the old settlement-free peering model.

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#143

Post by wmf »

null_ptr wrote: post #115
ffk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deal was a paid-peering deal, which would likely drive down Netflix costs. We don't have any information on whether net neutrality was harmed. Hopefully netflix will provide information on this. Peering is a practice where two sides agree to maintain their side of the infrastructure and not charge for metered bandwidth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering

Is it really peering in this case between Comcast and Netflix? How would Comcast leverage Netflix's infrastructure?

When Comcast has a packet that needs to get to Netflix, they can now hand it off directly to Netflix. That's all that peering means.

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#144

Post by gergles »

res0nat0r wrote: post #60
justincormack wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cabling is a natural monopoly. Who is allowed to service you over it is not. Thats why many countries have some degree of unbundling of service and provision of wires, eg I can get many providers of ADSL here over the same phone lines that are owned by a monopoly provider. Alas not for fibre though yet (UK).

Why would Verizon want to spend 10 million wiring up your neighborhood and potentially not get you as a customer in an area where Comcast has already spent 10 million to do so? Also why should Comcast be forced to let competitors use their infrastructure they've spent massive amounts of money on building and maintaining?

Little bit from my sibling response and a little bit more from the fact that they drained the ratepayers, government (through tax credits and accelerated depreciation), and the USF to the tune of $200 billion to provide universal broadband access (which they didn't do.)

We paid for the network, anybody selling transit across it should be able to use it.

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#145

Post by [deleted] »

scelerat wrote: post #20

And so the precedent is set. This is the direction I see things going: For $70 a month from Comcast you can get Amazon, Google, and Facebook. For only $10 more a month you can add Netflix and Spotify. Want Pandora? Sorry, you'll have to switch to AT&T for that. The broadband providers are used to this type of packaged service given their history as cable television providers. It's how they make their money beyond pro…

[deleted]

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#146

Post by wmf »

toast0 wrote: post #121
RyanZAG wrote: post #16

This is actually good for Netflix and terrible for any competition. While Netflix probably has to hand over a bit of money, they are in a much better position to do so than any of their competitors as they're the biggest. In effect this creates a massive entry barrier into the video streaming market. You will now likely need to set up a massive infrastructure and pay massive bribes to various internet providers to be…

This sounds like standard paid peering; there's nothing non-competitive here. If you're a small provider, you tend to buy transit from one or a few providers, and pay per bit in whichever direction has the most traffic. If you're bigger, maybe you can setup peering. If you have relatively balanced flows, and meet other qualifications, you can usually get free (settlement free) peering. If your flows aren't balanced,…

The tradition when backbones peer with each other was for traffic to be balanced. When a content provider peers with an eyeball ISP, free peering makes sense regardless of balance.

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#147

Post by rayiner »

scelerat wrote: post #20

And so the precedent is set. This is the direction I see things going: For $70 a month from Comcast you can get Amazon, Google, and Facebook. For only $10 more a month you can add Netflix and Spotify. Want Pandora? Sorry, you'll have to switch to AT&T for that. The broadband providers are used to this type of packaged service given their history as cable television providers. It's how they make their money beyond pro…

If this is a problem, then build physical infrastructure so your business isn't dependent on someone else's pipes. If states and municipalities put up roadblocks to it, then let's focus on tearing down those roadblocks.

I think it's ridiculous and self-serving for internet companies to complain about this. Getting bits to customers is a critical part of any online business. You can either do it yourself, or pay someone to do it. Does Amazon complain that UPS charges them to deliver packages to customers?

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#148

Post by w1ntermute »

zackmorris wrote: post #139
w1ntermute wrote: post #71

I refuse to play this game - I'm back to torrenting.

Or better yet, let someone else do the work for you: http://watch32.com I'm curious to see how this plays out because the endgame for the internet is free-fast-failsafe. I wonder how long it will take for companies to litigate themselves into irrelevance. I actually feel kind of bad for netflix in this case, because when you make a deal with the devil, he always wins, and I hate to see them go someday :-(

> Or better yet, let someone else do the work for you:

> http://watch32.com

Unfortunately, this (and most other similar) sites use Flash, something I'm trying to avoid[0]. They also tend to have only low-quality, grainy video (not that Netflix is much better even when buffering isn't an issue).

There is also the issue of these sites/videos coming and going. If they host the files on 3rd party platforms (like this site is doing), then once the site is popular those videos quickly get taken down. Then you're stuck clicking through trying to find that one site (if there's even one left) that still hasn't taken down the video. OTOH, if the files are self-hosted, then when the site becomes popular, it can no longer support the bandwidth costs, and goes under.

Torrent sites, however, have lasted for years. I've been using the same private torrent site for nearly a decade. It's reliable and fast, and it has a wide selection of content, both old and new. And I never have to deal with Flash.

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7287151

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#149

Post by rayiner »

erichurkman wrote: post #64
aleem wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not going to happen. The onus is not on the consumer, it's on the service provider. The service provider may transfer the costs onto the consumer but Comcast won't directly charge the consumers a premium. That would be a bad move and Comcast would lose out its customers to competitors.

What competitors? In many areas, they are the only broadband provider. The next-closest providers are typically DSL. Consumers are going to get screwed on the front & back end of this.

Even after TWC and Comcast combine, they will be the only wired TV choice for only 9% of customers.

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#150

Post by twistedpair »

gonzo wrote: post #122
JohnTHaller wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, my building here in NYC, I can get Time Warner or DSL (Verizon or from a reseller). That's it. Lots of us are stuck with 1 or 2 crappy options. I have overpriced Time Warner and a Verizon hotspot as a backup because the TW cable connection goes down about once a month. The other option is DSL which is too slow to do work and was down a week of my 30 day trial when I checked it out years back. Keep in mind that…

I'm in Austin, TX. We have two FTTH providers (AT&T, Grande). Grande offers 1Gbps now, AT&T is 300Mbps now, 1Gbps this summer. Time Warner offers 300Mbps now (DOCSIS). Google fiber is being deployed this year (1Gbps).

The terrible consequences of competition.
Post reply on HN