Live data from Hacker News

Comcast response to Netflix

corporate.comcast.com

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#41
post #23

I'm not too versed in this argument, so could someone please explain why Netflix's activities aren't covered by the normal peering agreements that make the "internet backbone" work? Doesn't Netflix pay it's ISP appropriately which gets disseminated by the other ISPs the traffic gets routed through?

It is actually rather simple:

* Netflix cannot make money if individual Internet users cannot connect to Netflix and stream their movies. Netflix brings in a lot of revenue from its customers, and even after the cost of its own Internet connection manages to turn a handsome profit.

* ISPs stand between Netflix and their users. Many ISPs, such as Comcast, are also involved in the business of selling subscriptions to TV channels (usually with plans that require people to pay for hundreds of channels they do not watch) -- a business that is dying because of Internet streaming. Since Netflix relies on ISPs to have customers at all, ISPs want to demand money from Netflix (as well as from their customers).

* Somewhere in there are the actual users of Netflix, who have no particular say in any of this. Most of those users would have been happier with BitTorrent, but are too terrified of lawsuits (and even if they did turn to torrents, certain ISPs -- i.e. Comcast -- have been known to deliberately interfere with their customers' traffic to thwart torrents).

If your reading of this is, "ISPs are greedy and want to double-dip," well, yeah, that's what is happening here.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#42
post #4

You lost me at "No ISP in the country has been a stronger supporter of the Open Internet than Comcast" I'm sorry Comcast but if you can't fullfil our agreement (Internet access) then you aren't an ISP in my mind. I pay you for an Internet connection, not for the ability to send packets at someone else -- they get to respond to me as well, that's part of our deal.

And is Comcast supposed to wire up every server for free? If I stick up a box and slap on a 1Gbps uplink to some hosting company that only bought 100Mbps from Comcast, should Comcast now give my and my hoster free access because you decided to download a video file from my server?

It's even better/worse than that. If Comcast customers are requesting 1Gbps of traffic from your server, Comcast may need to buy transit to ensure those packets aren't dropped.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#44
post #22

"Internet interconnection has nothing to do with net neutrality; it’s all about Netflix wanting to unfairly shift its costs from its customers to all Internet customers, regardless of whether they subscribe to Netflix or not." Really it's Comcast's customers who are using Netflix and those customers are paying them for an X Mbps connection. I don't see what difference it makes if the data comes from Netflix or some o…

No it's not like that. You're sort of implying that Netflix/Cogent should get free peering with Comcast because subscribers want to access Netflix. With this logic, why should anyone have to pay for hosting bandwidth?

If you're willing to hand off traffic to Comcast at any and all points of their choosing (aka cold-potato routing), then I'd say you should get free peering because you're doing Comcast such a favor.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#45
post #23

I'm not too versed in this argument, so could someone please explain why Netflix's activities aren't covered by the normal peering agreements that make the "internet backbone" work? Doesn't Netflix pay it's ISP appropriately which gets disseminated by the other ISPs the traffic gets routed through?

Netflix doesn't have a "primary ISP", they are a network. They would like to freely peer to networks and ISPs that they can physically reach (e.g.: US ISPs), and they are happy to pay carriers for transit, that is bringing their traffic elsewhere in the world where they don't have a physical presence.

Most large ISPs won't freely peer with Netflix though; that's actually an industry standard, because peering is usually regulated by some kind of traffic balance between packets entering and exiting the network; e.g.: network A will peer with network B is they both exchange similar amounts of traffic in both directions. In Netflix case, it's obvious that this is impossible.

In those cases, Netflix would rely on paying the transit service; that is, they pay Cogent to bring their traffic into Comcast, because Comcast and Cogent already have some (secret) agreement in place (either feee or paid peer, who knows); Netflix would be happy to just pay Cogent to reach Comcast users. They would call it "a compromise" because their best option would be to freely peer with Comcast, but again, it's been an industry standard forever that peering is not only a factor of physical connection, but also of commercial power and quantity of packets sent and received (who needs to send more is the one that has to pay).

Netflix is now saying that Comcast is deliberately letting their peering with Cogent saturate and refusing to upgrade it (or offering economic conditions that Cogent won't accept, which is the same). This way, Netflix must enter a direct (paid) peering agreement with Comcast, to be able to offer good quality to Comcast users; in that agreement, Comcast will let Netflix pay whatever they see fit to reach their users. The peering here would obviously be paid and not free, since (again) there is a strong disproportion between packets going in/out the network.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#46
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what's expected. What's expected is that you get what you pay for, whether you're a customer on the hosting end or the residential end. If you're paying your data center for 1Gbps, then they ought to have at least 1Gbps capacity to the major residential ISPs. If you're paying your residential ISP for 15Mbps, then they ought to have at least 15Mbps capacity to their peers. If there are 100 people trying to…

Unfortunately you don't buy an always open 15 Mbps pipe, you buy "15 Mbps peak speeds", or at least that's how it is worded for me. Which means at peak usage times you expect to get lower than 15 Mbps.

It's hard for customers to buy that when the YouTube and Netflix videos they're watching only need a few hundred Kbps, but they can't get one good stream going on an otherwise unutilized connection. It's not a capacity crunch near the edges of Comcast's network, where lines are still shared in neighborhoods and upgrades cost the most; it's just greed, fattening already healthy profit margins by refusing to increase peering capacity and demanding peers pay more for bits customers are already paying for.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And is Comcast supposed to wire up every server for free? If I stick up a box and slap on a 1Gbps uplink to some hosting company that only bought 100Mbps from Comcast, should Comcast now give my and my hoster free access because you decided to download a video file from my server?

That's not what's expected. What's expected is that you get what you pay for, whether you're a customer on the hosting end or the residential end. If you're paying your data center for 1Gbps, then they ought to have at least 1Gbps capacity to the major residential ISPs. If you're paying your residential ISP for 15Mbps, then they ought to have at least 15Mbps capacity to their peers. If there are 100 people trying to…

tldr: peering issue, right?

google has similar issues with some EU providers in particular in france, for youtube.

traditionally the ISP pays to upgrade the pipes for the content that is provided by a third party (ie ISP pays for youtube, netflix traffic). ie the one whos downloading pays for upgrading pipes.

thats where some ISPs (comcast too then i guess?) generally cringe: this way of dividing costs was ok 10 years ago, but not anymore: streaming is 90% of their traffic and its not sustainable.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#49
post #23

I'm not too versed in this argument, so could someone please explain why Netflix's activities aren't covered by the normal peering agreements that make the "internet backbone" work? Doesn't Netflix pay it's ISP appropriately which gets disseminated by the other ISPs the traffic gets routed through?

When the traffic flow was Netflix->Cogent->Comcast, peering didn't really come into it because both Netflix and Comcast were transit customers of Cogent. When Comcast is a customer, they get to decide how much pipe to pay for, and in this case they decided to pay for not nearly enough bandwidth to handle their customers' demand for Netflix.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#50
post #4

You lost me at "No ISP in the country has been a stronger supporter of the Open Internet than Comcast" I'm sorry Comcast but if you can't fullfil our agreement (Internet access) then you aren't an ISP in my mind. I pay you for an Internet connection, not for the ability to send packets at someone else -- they get to respond to me as well, that's part of our deal.

I was just about to post that exact same comment. I nearly spit out my drink reading that line!
Post reply on HN