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

Why is Netflix Buffering? Dispelling the Congestion Myth

publicpolicy.verizon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 223 posts

Re: Why is Netflix Buffering? Dispelling the Congestion Myth

#201

Post by caseydurfee »

ancap wrote: post #193
ubernostrum wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism as ideally defined is a period an economy often passes through extremely briefly; one of the exit paths is consolidation of enough power/wealth/influence in a handful of individuals or corporations to begin effectively purchasing government actions as desired. Unless you would like to argue that no true Scotsman would ever abuse a position to make a buck...

>one of the exit paths is consolidation of enough power/wealth/influence in a handful of individuals or corporations to begin effectively purchasing government actions as desired. The prerequisite to purchasing government actions is the government having the power/authority to take action. There's a reason lobbyists do not approach you or me.

The prerequisite to purchasing government actions instead of purchasing mercenaries to enforce ones' will directly is the government having the power/authority to take action.

Getting rid of government doesn't change the ability for the powerful to use money to apply coercive force against the powerless. You know that, right? It just means they have to do it themselves. Would you rather $EVIL_CORP own a Senator or own weapons of mass destruction?

Re: Why is Netflix Buffering? Dispelling the Congestion Myth

#202

Post by rayiner »

cs702 wrote: post #186
rayiner wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the problem here isn't that you can't fill your internet connection, period, but that you can't fill it with traffic from one particular endpoint. There is a bilateral aspect to the problem here that's totally ignored in your hypothetical. Different example. Air Canada has an unlimited North America flight pass: http://www.aircanada.com/en/offers/air/wallet_na_faq/wallet_... . You can characterize this pass as bu…

No, the problem is that the ISP's network does not have sufficient capacity at that particular endpoint to receive the traffic pulled (and paid for) by its customers. The bottleneck at that endpoint is the ISP . -- PS. Travel is far too different to use in an analogy -- e.g., it doesn't involve delivery of continuous services to customer premises.

Your analogy paints the internet as a distribution system, with some fungible commodity (water, electricity) flowing from sources to sinks. That may be how Netflix uses the internet, but that's not how the internet is designed. It's designed to be a mesh, with nodes being peers to each other. The distributed structure of ownership isn't an accident of history. The internet was designed around that structure. Its much more like the hub and spoke airport system then a water distribution system. And as in the airport system, its not the sole responsiblity of the most popular destinations to pay to upgrade congested hub nodes.

Re: Why is Netflix Buffering? Dispelling the Congestion Myth

#203

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rhino369 wrote: post #199
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Verizon is saying, use a different bridge they are all open. You're assuming Verizon isn't over-subscribing all of their other peering connections too. > Both are valid arguments. However, one thing to consider is that Netflix could switch ISPS tomorrow and start dumping their load on a different bridge. Your analogy is broken because peering connections aren't like bridges. Expanding a bridge costs millions of dol…

>You're assuming Verizon isn't over-subscribing all of their other peering connections too. The PR release linked as the topic of this thread claims it's only 44% on the other connections. >Your analogy is broken because peering connections aren't like bridges. Expanding a bridge costs millions of dollars and can't reasonably be moved from where you build it. 10Gbps switch ports do not cost millions of dollars and ca…

> The PR release linked as the topic of this thread claims it's only 44% on the other connections.

Percentages don't tell you anything. The fact that some 10Mbps link is at 23% utilization is of no utility. Neither is the capacity of links not connected to the relevant customers. The real question is, if Netflix used some other transit provider and their traffic went over some other Verizon links, wouldn't those links still get saturated?

> There isn't just one peering ports there are many many peering points.

...and?

> It's also cheap for Netflix to use another ISP who won't cram it down saturated peering points.

If that were true then there would be no dispute.

Re: Why is Netflix Buffering? Dispelling the Congestion Myth

#204

Post by tptacek »

Alupis wrote: post #143
DanBC wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wrong -- I'm paying Verizon for access to the internet -- more specifically, for access to Netflix. If I can't get Netflix, I don't pay Verizon. I either get a new ISP, or don't have internet at all You might not like the logical conclusion: the ISPs charge people for what they actually use.

Not necessarily. If Level3 is be believed (and they are credible imho), the Big5 ISP's here in the states are just flat-out refusing to make any network upgrades. Level3 has even offered to split the costs with them, since it benefits Level3 as well. What happened to all that "National Broadband Act" funding the Big5 ISP's got? What about annual infrastructure upgrades? These guys are not coping with the data-driven…

Why is Level3 particularly credible to you?

Re: Why is Netflix Buffering? Dispelling the Congestion Myth

#205

Post by trevelyan »

tptacek wrote: post #204
Alupis wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. If Level3 is be believed (and they are credible imho), the Big5 ISP's here in the states are just flat-out refusing to make any network upgrades. Level3 has even offered to split the costs with them, since it benefits Level3 as well. What happened to all that "National Broadband Act" funding the Big5 ISP's got? What about annual infrastructure upgrades? These guys are not coping with the data-driven…

Why is Level3 particularly credible to you?

Because the cost of Internet access in the United States is higher, and quality of service lower than what it is in other markets serviced by Level3?

Re: Why is Netflix Buffering? Dispelling the Congestion Myth

#206

Post by Athens »

The real problem is the ownership of the physical lines that interconnect everything. The high cost and the limited right of way access prevents duplication of physical networks leaving one company in ownership thus control and this is a monopoly. This is why most North American cities (Canada and the United States) have one cable company and one phone company in each region. Services from competitors and small companies just access, use and resell from the single company in the region. In BC for Example you have Shaw and Telus. Bell, Videotron, Rogers rents access over the Telus Network in most cases.

What is really needed is to separate the physical network form the service provider. We need a Provincially and State owned network or county or city owned networks with one mandate only. Provide a physical network and charge a price to maintain and grow it. owners of homes and businesses and other buildings would pay for the last mile connection to the network and own that last mile connection. Companies like Bell, Rogers, and dozens upon dozens of small companies offering service be it phone or internet or TV can plug hardware into the network and provide such services. Both the consumer and the ISP pay a network access fee that pays for the network. But this puts every one on equal footing because its the same fee. the physical network can't throttle or control or manipulate any of the content. Would be easy for small companies to expand by adding hardware into data center locations all over the network. Would allow consumers to buy and plug in equipment to allow for point to point VPN connections between family members at a fair price.

It is the only way to solve this issue. I would suggest the same be done with the Cell Phone networks. The Cities and Provinces and States own the towers using all the frequencies and they charge a access fee to the subscriber and phone provider to manage and expand the network. Any company could start up a cell service and compete head to head. As long as the core infrastructure is owned by one entity that has its own motives on how to use it, it will always be a monopoly situation and thats bad for business and consumers and innovation. Take the expensive part out of the puzzle and make it a public owned resource let the ISP and companies fight for customers on equal footing.

Re: Why is Netflix Buffering? Dispelling the Congestion Myth

#207

Post by mcphage »

rayiner wrote: post #157
deeviant wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny, why does verizon call their service "high speed internet service", when the is no thing as the internet. And if you go to the landing page for high speed internet access on the verizon homepage, it becomes immediately obvious that they are selling it as a internet service. Should we now start talking about there is no such thing as a video, just 1's and zero's, or, there is no such thing as 1's and 0's,…

I mean to say that there is no such thing as what software folks think of as the "internet": the sort of idealized network that you think of when you're dealing with sockets instead of edge routers. Obviously "internet" exists as a marketing term, but it refers to what's described in the Cisco article, not to the idealization. Do you get upset when you sign up for a United flight and one of the legs is operated by a…

> I mean to say that there is no such thing as what software folks think of as the "internet": the sort of idealized network that you think of when you're dealing with sockets instead of edge routers. Obviously "internet" exists as a marketing term

So what you're saying is, Verizon's selling a product ("internet access") that doesn't exist—and that it's not their fault that they can't provide it, since it doesn't actually exist? Maybe they shouldn't be selling it, then.

Re: Why is Netflix Buffering? Dispelling the Congestion Myth

#208

Post by ancap »

caseydurfee wrote: post #201
ancap wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>one of the exit paths is consolidation of enough power/wealth/influence in a handful of individuals or corporations to begin effectively purchasing government actions as desired. The prerequisite to purchasing government actions is the government having the power/authority to take action. There's a reason lobbyists do not approach you or me.

The prerequisite to purchasing government actions instead of purchasing mercenaries to enforce ones' will directly is the government having the power/authority to take action. Getting rid of government doesn't change the ability for the powerful to use money to apply coercive force against the powerless. You know that, right? It just means they have to do it themselves. Would you rather $EVIL_CORP own a Senator or ow…

The definition of government is a monopoly on violence/force. Furthermore, no monopoly can be sustained without the force of government.

Absent the government I'm not even certain there would be weapons of mass destruction. It is the state who demands these weapons to maintain its monopoly on force.

A business, on the other hand, is interested in making a profit. Absent government coercion, a business must provide a worthwhile good/service to make a profit, all while competing in the marketplace.

Anything an "$EVIL_CORP" might do pales in comparison to actions we know governments have done. One must only tally up the hundreds of millions of lives lost during the 20th century in senseless wars, democide, etc.

Re: Why is Netflix Buffering? Dispelling the Congestion Myth

#209

Post by Alupis »

tptacek wrote: post #204
Alupis wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. If Level3 is be believed (and they are credible imho), the Big5 ISP's here in the states are just flat-out refusing to make any network upgrades. Level3 has even offered to split the costs with them, since it benefits Level3 as well. What happened to all that "National Broadband Act" funding the Big5 ISP's got? What about annual infrastructure upgrades? These guys are not coping with the data-driven…

Why is Level3 particularly credible to you?

1) Because they aren't a last-mile carrier, but instead a backbone provider and thus don't have chips on the table.

2) As trevelyan said, they operate around the world, and state that this situation, and mindset of last-mile carriers, is unique to the US.

3) One would think a backbone provider would share the same views as the last-mile carriers, since it would mean more money for them too. However, they state that big content providers such as Netflix are very much so not a problem, but instead it's the last-mile carrier's refusal to make necessary network infrastructure upgrades to augment capacity.

This information is available on their blog. This post in particular worth a read: http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/chicken-game-play...

Re: Why is Netflix Buffering? Dispelling the Congestion Myth

#210

Post by SilasX »

agwa wrote: post #17
rnovak wrote: post #2

They can claim whatever they want, but when you tunnel Netflix traffic through a VPN so all the ISP see's is encrypted traffic and bandwidth issues disappear, it removes all mystery. I've tried several VPN's to test out my theory, and with each one, as soon as the ISP couldn't inspect traffic, all throttling seem to magically vanish. considering what we're paying for broadband, we should be getting what we pay for wi…

That's because your VPN providers are no doubt using a different transit provider than Netflix (Level 3) so your traffic is bypassing the congested peering points. The peering disputes are affecting not just Netflix traffic, but traffic between Verizon and any site using Level 3 for transit. (Not to take the blame away from Verizon. I'd love to see them try to use their logic to explain why other, non-Netflix service…

So ... if movak could costlessly move the traffic to a better route, why isn't that the normal way it's working now?

Why can't Netflix just use that route?

Post reply on HN