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

211–220 of 351 posts

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

#211

Post by eli »

ffk wrote: post #94

This might not be an anti-net neutrality deal. Here are the details we know at this point: 1. Netflix is currently using Cogent 2. Comcast offered them a direct connection to their network via paid-peering. 3. Netflix agreed and will move over. 4. Nothing about net neutrality was mentioned in the article. This deal is being referred to as paid-peering. Peering is a practice performed at ISPs where two ISPs hook up in…

What's the real difference between holding peering connections for ransom versus implementing packet-level QoS?

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

#212

Post by MichaelGG »

seanlinehan wrote: post #190
rayiner wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 someo…

Both consumers and companies like Netflix already pay the infrastructure to transport those bits. The consumers pay their ISP to send and receive bits and the companies pay their ISP to send and receive bits. The more apt analogy would be if UPS decided to make Amazon packages ship super slow unless Amazon payed extra fees to "upgrade" the shipping speed back to average.

That's not an apt analogy at all. Netflix connected to Cogent, which is one of the cheapest providers that still works (HE is cheaper but extremely congested). Netflix now determined that Cogent's connectivity to Comcast was insufficient, so they're connecting directly.

You could make the case that Comcast should have upgraded their peering with Cogent. That's the case in almost all of these disputes. But Netflix blinked first.

If you want to make useless shipping analogies, it's like Amazon ships using ABC to a rough wilderness. ABC uses simple cars that don't handle the terrain so they contract the local government to deliver packages in that area. You could say it's the local government's responsibility to fix the roads, or ABC's responsibility or anyone but Amazon's. Good luck.

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

#213

Post by atmosx »

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…

Exactly my thoughts.

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

#214

Post by Agathos »

lhnz wrote: post #47
jaggederest wrote: post #4

Wow, Netflix has decided to negotiate with the terrorists? I'm pretty disappointed. Edit: Having read more of the non-paywalled version, I have to say I think they're shooting themselves in the foot, even if Comcast was offering a better price than Cogent. It sets a terrible precedent, and gives Comcast the leverage to bump the price extortionately at the end of the deal.

You don't understand. This is the creation of an economic moat (a term coined by Warren Buffet.) The gatekeeper creates a toll and the tradesman agrees to pay the toll. This is an entry cost to new market players and therefore reduces competition. This toll may be increased as the biggest player (Netflix) grows in size and this benefits them, as eventually new startups have $1+ million startup costs and nobody is wil…

This is more like a reverse moat: you only have to pay it after you succeed. New entrants don't have to pay the tax -- peering without money changing hands will happen to "just work" for them just like it used to. Only after they get big will Comcast create a new traffic jam and send them a quote to fix it -- that's too late to help Netflix.

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

#215

Post by ghshephard »

jonknee wrote: post #202
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peering agreements existed in the form they did because of the underlying assumption that traffic would be roughly symmetric. Services like Netflix that send massive amounts of traffic in a single direction violate this assumption. This is one of the underreported issues in the whole net neutrality debate. In the late '90s I worked in the WAN engineering group doing capacity planning at a big regional CLEC, which act…

You forgot to mention the part about how it actually does balance out because Comcast is receiving $18B billion a year for internet bandwidth from the its customers. Customers are requesting more data, but Comcast wants to be paid on both sides because they have a monopoly over the customer. If it is really expensive to accept Netflix's offer of free hardware and free bandwidth then the additional cost should be pass…

Comcast is prepared to provide that bandwidth to its customers subject to it's fair use cap of 300 Gigabytes. What they aren't prepared to do (for better or worse) is install larger circuits to Cogent so that Cogent's customers have unblocked access to Comcast's customers.

Netflix could have held out, and made Comcast out to be the bad guy, or could have leaned on Cogent to get the circuits installed - but, in this case, they folded and just decided to pay Comcast. This will probably set a very bad precedent for them when it comes to renew those agreements in 5-10 years, or however long they will be. Maybe they are hoping for some competition to enter the US environment by then.

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

#216

Post by MichaelGG »

ivanca wrote: post #177
ffk wrote: post #94

This might not be an anti-net neutrality deal. Here are the details we know at this point: 1. Netflix is currently using Cogent 2. Comcast offered them a direct connection to their network via paid-peering. 3. Netflix agreed and will move over. 4. Nothing about net neutrality was mentioned in the article. This deal is being referred to as paid-peering. Peering is a practice performed at ISPs where two ISPs hook up in…

You don't seem to understand: This is not a technical issue; is a conceptual one, people are not going to read the details of the deal, rather to grab the idea and slowly believe that paying for better connection with a site/ISP is normal.

>rather to grab the idea and slowly believe that paying for better connection with a site/ISP is normal.

Is is normal. ISPs are not equal. There's a reason you pay Level(3) a lot more than HE.

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

#217

Post by ghshephard »

Unsaid among all this - Netflix could have simply paid a higher quality transit provider (Level 3) to provide them transit, and there wouldn't have been any problems (Level 3 maintains some headroom on their peering circuits).

The reality is that it was likely cheaper for Netflix to just pay for peering with Comcast directly.

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

#218

Post by MichaelGG »

gtirloni wrote: post #157

One way to make this ugly real fast is for content providers like Netflix/Amazon to completely block subscribers from ISPs that apply QoS to negatively impact them. Say something like "we can't provide a great experience so we think you should have no experience at all because it wouldn't be fair with us and with you. we are sorry." and make it explicit that it's because of the ISP they are using. The ISP think they…

So your expectation is that if Netflix intentionally prevents users from using their service because they don't like the user's choice of ISP, that will turn out well for Netflix?

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

#219

Post by lhnz »

Agathos wrote: post #214
lhnz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand. This is the creation of an economic moat (a term coined by Warren Buffet.) The gatekeeper creates a toll and the tradesman agrees to pay the toll. This is an entry cost to new market players and therefore reduces competition. This toll may be increased as the biggest player (Netflix) grows in size and this benefits them, as eventually new startups have $1+ million startup costs and nobody is wil…

This is more like a reverse moat: you only have to pay it after you succeed. New entrants don't have to pay the tax -- peering without money changing hands will happen to "just work" for them just like it used to. Only after they get big will Comcast create a new traffic jam and send them a quote to fix it -- that's too late to help Netflix.

Good refutation. You are correct if they do not extend the tax to new entrants (which I had forgotten was currently the case.)

Still, perhaps Comcast will deem all of the companies big enough to compete with Netflix large enough to pay the tax.

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

#220

Post by grayrest »

cmircea wrote: post #85
k-mcgrady wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "Many areas only have Comcast service!" Do a lot of people in the US only have access to one or two ISP's?? If so why? I'm in a not particularly urban part of Ireland and I can choose between at least 5 ISP's, decent speeds, and a good variety of prices.

You have to remember that, compared to the US, Ireland is tiny. The majority of the US population does not live in large urban areas, who while New York for example might have lots of choices, Spokane probably doesn't.

New York does NOT have choice. I live in Manhattan (Upper East Side) and have the choice between $60 1/15Mbps Time Warner Cable and $40 1Mbps Verizon DSL. Theoretically some people in the city have access to Verizon FiOS but I haven't met these people and complaining about ISPs is pretty common for the locals.

The only factor that determines the quality of your ISP options is having a competitive player in the market.

Post reply on HN