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

Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 361 posts

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#211

Post by saganus »

sliverstorm wrote: post #155
icambron wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If Netflix is 35% of global internet traffic at peak capacity (as per the Akamai CEO's comments at a number of events), is it really fair to treat them like every other company? I don't see why not. I think it might make more sense to think of it as streaming video, the category of goods, rather than Netflix, the company. So 35% of global internet traffic is people streaming videos. And who cares that it's video; fr…

What if Comcast's network is built around the idea that traffic is exchanged relatively equally? They put in gigabit switches everywhere, a nice fair balanced network. Then Netflix comes along, and suddenly 35% of Comcast's customer traffic is all going to a handful of Netflix DSNs? Suddenly Comcast has to redo the whole connection. They have to buy top-shelf hardware just for Netflix. I don't know if this has happen…

But then doesn't that mean that it's also easier to put a cache in front of those overused switches and solve the problem much more easily?

I guess the core issue here is that, from a customer's point of view, the ISP is selling me inet access, regardless of where the data actually goes, so it is the ISP's responsibility to keep their end of the bargain (to provide inet access). As a customer I should not care how is their topology planned, what kind of equipment they use, etc.

So basically the ISP though that they could offer T amount of bandwidth, advertised it as U (with U > T) because most customer won't use even close to U, and now that more and more users are actually using U amount of bandwidth (or closer to it) the ISP's infrastructure is suffering because they simply where not prepared for it, i.e. they oversold their capacity.

OT: By the way, why downvote the parent? I really thought downvoting is for when the post is off-topic or offensive or something... but more and more I see HN modders downvote because they disagree... really? so you make the post go into an ureadable color (grey) just because you disagree? I don't think it's supposed to be that way, is it?

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#212

Post by notdonspaulding »

fastest963 wrote: post #103
notdonspaulding wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...I assume Netflix can be pretty sure of where the bottleneck is happening ... It depends on how fancy they get with their detection routines. They can certainly see which networks the traffic is flowing over, but then there are multiple devices (and networks) in play to deliver that traffic to them. For instance, just a one-way trip showing the devices that could slow down a packet of data can give you an idea of…

If a large majority of customers that use a particular ISP but are having streaming problems across different devices and if Netflix has no load on their network, then you can assume its a problem with the middle-man.

The point Verizon is making here is that Netflix has not done due diligence to verify that the specific customer they are showing the "Verizon Sucks!" message to is having connection issues that are provably Verizon's fault.

It seems to me that they're stopping one foot shy of calling Netflix out for libel. It's not libel if it's true, so it might be better for Netflix to only show the message when they can prove that the specific connection is being slowed because of the interconnect (or lack thereof).

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#213

Post by hga »

mr_luc wrote: post #162
josh2600 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ISP's job, as a private company, is to maximize shareholder value. The circuit consumers are sold is a "best-effort" connection in stark contrast to, say, a T1, which is a dedicated circuit. It's also very hard to prove that Verizon is throttling, versus, say, simply physically underprovisioning the connection. With respect to public money, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The crux of the Net Neutrality de…

I just wanted to call out where you say that it's "hard to prove" that ISPs are purposefully degrading service. Hard to prove in a court of law, perhaps, but the speeds of access to the businesses being extorted can tell a pretty convincing story. This chart: http://appledailyreport.com/backend/wp-content/uploads/2014/... paints a nice picture of how ISPs want to extort businesses that are in more profitable lines of…

At the bottom of this you can find a description of how Netflix at the moment is detecting these problems: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/06/netflixs-network-cong...

Sounds sufficiently sophisticated.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#214

Post by Aloisius »

Is Verizon actively slowing the connection to Netflix.com itself or is the connection between Verizon and Netflix's provider (Cogent?) simply limited? In other words, are all Cogent customers suffering poor performance with Verizon customers?

Because the former is wrong and demanding more money from a single company hosted on a service provider you have specific peering agreements with is extortion.

The latter however, well, no one said there were unlimited pipes between every transit provider on the planet and if you're someone large like Netflix, sometimes you need to pay for transit on more than one provider to get the performance you need when your own provider can't or won't do so themselves. It has been like that for decades.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#215

Post by hga »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #212
fastest963 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a large majority of customers that use a particular ISP but are having streaming problems across different devices and if Netflix has no load on their network, then you can assume its a problem with the middle-man.

The point Verizon is making here is that Netflix has not done due diligence to verify that the specific customer they are showing the "Verizon Sucks!" message to is having connection issues that are provably Verizon's fault. It seems to me that they're stopping one foot shy of calling Netflix out for libel. It's not libel if it's true, so it might be better for Netflix to only show the message when they can prove tha…

I think it would be better put as "claim", vs. point.

At the bottom of this item you can see in a lot of detail how Netflix is making this judgement: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/06/netflixs-network-cong...

Sounds sufficient to me.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#216

Post by click170 »

josh2600 wrote: post #170
sliverstorm wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Comcast's network is built around the idea that traffic is exchanged relatively equally? They put in gigabit switches everywhere, a nice fair balanced network. Then Netflix comes along, and suddenly 35% of Comcast's customer traffic is all going to a handful of Netflix DSNs? Suddenly Comcast has to redo the whole connection. They have to buy top-shelf hardware just for Netflix. I don't know if this has happen…

Note: It is definitely not built under that premise, hence why your consumer bandwidth is asymmetrical... The Tier 1 always wants to ask for more bits than a lower tier operator. If a lower tier operator asks for more bits and tilts the traffic balance, things get interesting. Cogent is not a tier 1 but slings 35% of the internet around at will. It does cost a lot of money to route Netflix's bits and the narrative is…

> Another way to view this: Netflix is demanding huge network upgrades without any additional revenue source.

Sounds to me like just another way of rephrasing "ISP Customers are demanding huge network upgrades without any additional revenue source."

Netflix does not send packets to you unless you request them.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#217

Post by whoopdedo »

zacinbusiness wrote: post #109
josh2600 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ISP's job, as a private company, is to maximize shareholder value. The circuit consumers are sold is a "best-effort" connection in stark contrast to, say, a T1, which is a dedicated circuit. It's also very hard to prove that Verizon is throttling, versus, say, simply physically underprovisioning the connection. With respect to public money, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The crux of the Net Neutrality de…

Maximizing shareholder value is less important than offering good customer service. Corporate greed is so disgusting.

Except where the executives view the shareholders as their customers and the end users as the product.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#218

Post by jedberg »

tikumo wrote: post #145

Netflix could also make their buffering settings more advanced. i want a bigger buffer if my internet is unstable, and it should be transparant how netflix buffers..

It already does that, but there's only so much buffering you're willing to wait for.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#219

Post by oconnore »

supermatt wrote: post #152
oconnore wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/last mile/first mile/

As the issue is data flowing FROM Netflix TO the end user, I think your 'correction' may be incorrect, as it is indeed the 'last mile' that is in discussion.

Saying "first mile" re-frames the conversation from the point of view of the customer, and is important because the Verizons and Comcasts of the world are very good at framing the debate in terms that benefit them.

Last mile is from the POV of the carrier, and implies that something is being delivered to you.

First mile is from the POV of the customer, and implies that this is the first mile of your internet connection.

The direction data is flowing is irrelevant.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#220

Post by oconnore »

notdonspaulding wrote: post #207
supermatt wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the issue is data flowing FROM Netflix TO the end user, I think your 'correction' may be incorrect, as it is indeed the 'last mile' that is in discussion.

"last mile" doesn't have to do with which direction the bits are flowing (although there may be a loose correlation). It has to do with the fact that the customer is on the outside edge of the network. A connection from Verizon to Cogent isn't considered last mile because there are other networks on the other side of Cogent. Since you aren't providing a connection from your ISP to some other network, you are the last…

From the point of view of a carrier, yes. I think you missed the point.
Post reply on HN