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

231–240 of 351 posts

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

#231

Post by gtirloni »

MichaelGG wrote: post #218
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?

If you want to ignore all the details in this discussion, how much power each company has and how much they're willing to leverage it.. sure, go ahead.

The whole net neutrality discussion is a power play between content providers and fiber owners, nothing else. The discussion about freedom and competition is awesome (and right!), but at the end it's these two huge groups fighting each other while we are screaming "think of the children!".

What Netflix would be losing if a subset of their customers on provider X is already getting crappy service and it can't do anything about that? At some point they will have to decide what to do about all those complaints and refund requests.

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

#232

Post by nitrogen »

rayiner wrote: post #149
erichurkman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

9% of 300 million is a freaking huge number.

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

#233

Post by bdb »

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…

Very, very well said.

Let's do some simple math to prove your point.

Assume Comcast has about 10 Tbps of traffic at peak, single-counting all traffic that transits AS 7922 (Comcast's national backbone network). [1] Now assume that a full 50% of that traffic is originated by Netflix, and the market price for transit is $2/mbps. The percentage is likely quite lower than that, and given 5 Tbps of traffic volume and coordination between the two networks to reduce the number of miles the bits need to be hauled by both networks, the per-megabit price is almost certainly quite a bit less.

But even with these obviously flawed guesses, we're only talking about $120mm/year in costs. Netflix's worldwide revenue in 2013 was $4.3b [2]; Comcast's 2013 revenue from their US HSI business alone was $10.3b. [3] If 50% of Comcast's $10.3b business was in jeopardy, don't you think they'd find a way to absorb that $120mm?

[1] http://as7922.peeringdb.com/

[2] Netflix Q4 2013 earnings release, http://ir.netflix.com/results.cfm

[3] Comcast 10-K filed 2/12/2014

(edited: formatting)

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

#234

Post by terminus »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #182
valas wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

> Services like Netflix that send massive amounts of traffic in a single direction violate this assumption.

Netflix does not send any data. Comcast customers request lots of data from Netflix. Significant difference.

Another example (just in the other direction): A backup provider needs to pay up big-cable because their customers are uploading a lot of data?

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

#235

Post by rayiner »

betterunix wrote: post #187
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…

Internet companies already pay for their access: they pay their own ISP and hosting bills, just like Amazon pays UPS to ship packages.

They don't pay their ISPs to get their packets all the way to the customer. They're reliant on somebody else's property to get them there.

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

#236

Post by vidarh »

nitrogen wrote: post #226
ghshephard wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

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. That's totally backwards. Comcast's customers are paying for access to Cogent's customers, including Netflix.

That has never been how the internet works. You pay a part of the costs, the other party pay a part of the cost. When the other side opts for a cheap, poor quality connection (like Cogent), you suffer no matter how much you pay, and it's not your ISPs fault.

It's not Comcasts responsibility if Cogent did not have peering arrangement or had paid for sufficient capacity to handle their end of the connection, that their customer was paying them to provide.

If it was, I'd love to provide Netflix connection much cheaper than Cogent. I'll provide it over my 10Mbps uplink, and blame consumers ISPs when everything falls over.

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

#238

Post by mkempe »

saryant wrote: post #66
bbosh wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see any other way around this. Vote with your feet.

So I should just disconnect myself from the internet? Because it's either Comcast or a DSL provider that won't give me a straight answer as to whether or not they service my address. And this is in Boulder .

Interestingly, Boulder forced a few years ago the electric utility (Xcel) to bring fiber to the vast majority of houses in town, but the fiber sits unused because it was intended for realtime metering solutions and the town & utility gave up on that goal.

Imagine if that fiber were used as a community network! Unfortunately, the town is not planning to do this -- they've excluded the fiber from their plans to take over the Xcel infrastructure.

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

#239

Post by rayiner »

jonknee wrote: post #225
ghshephard wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

> 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. How would that work? Comcast customers by and large can't switch to another broadband provider and Netflix customers can certainly switch to another video provider (Comcast!). It's not like this is a brand new issue, Netfl…

Almost nowhere does Comcast actually have a monopoly on broadband.

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

#240

Post by mattl »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #57
cmircea wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not when their competitors will do the same. Heck, what competitors? Many areas only have Comcast service!

>> "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.

Are those all some form of DSL? Is there a big choice of phone companies? I know in the UK, its BT and a couple of resellers. Do you still have to pay for a phone line rental to someone else?

In the US, you generally have a choice between one (two if you're lucky) cable companies and DSL.

Post reply on HN