Observations of an Internet Middleman • Hacker News Board

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#11

Post by wmf » Mon, May 05, 2014, 6:56 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #8

dllthomas wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Settlement-free peering assumes that bandwidth usage is roughly symmetric: when it's not symmetric, the side sending more bandwidth has to pay." I've never understood why this is - especially in a case like this, where the sending side is sending because (the customers of) the receiving side explicitly asked for it.

Because the cost of a packet is borne by the receiver while the sender is the one monetizing it. The assumption is that if you're sending traffic to a customer, you are being paid for that activity through subscription fees, ads, donations, etc. That packet costs the receiver some minuscule amount to process. Even though it was requested by the ultimate receiver, the ultimate sender is only sending the packet because…

Because the cost of a packet is borne by the receiver...

That's true for hot-potato routing, but CDNs generally use cold-potato routing.

As for monetization, both Netflix and Comcast are getting paid by their respective customers.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#12

Post by wdewind » Mon, May 05, 2014, 6:59 PM UTC

preinheimer wrote: post #5

wdewind wrote: post #2

Here's the part that doesn't make sense to me, and hopefully someone can explain it: Netflix pays Level 3 and Cogent to connect them to Comcast's network. Comcast claims that only the Level 3 connection is saturated, and that Netflix is sending all their bandwidth over Level 3 because it's cheaper for them. Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or…

I think your issue is here: "Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or Level 3) tries to push more data through that, which causes congestion, it seems like a contractual fact that Comcast is either holding up their end of the bargain or not." Level 3 doesn't buy the connection from Comcast. Comcast buys a connection from Level 3. Comcast needs to…

Thanks a lot for your response (and to the others who responded as well, appreciate it!). What you're saying makes sense, but just to play devils advocate...

Disclaimer: The blog I'm about to post was linked from Comcast's blog. They claim he is independent, I know nothing about him.

"Netflix could use multiple providers to connect to ISPs and could also use third party CDNs like Akamai, EdgeCast and Limelight, who are already connected to ISPs, to deliver their traffic. In fact, this is how Netflix delivered 100% of their traffic for many, many years, using third-party CDNs. Netflix likes to make it sound like there is only one way to deliver videos on the Internet when in fact, there are multiple ways."[1]

It would seem to me that if Comcast is using all the bandwidth they've purchased from Level 3 than it's a simple reality for them that they'll need to increase that bandwidth or they'll see reduced service. I don't see why this is explicitly either side's problem. It seems like it would be great if they could figure out a mutually beneficial situation, but I guess I fail to see the moral hazard. If Comcast doesn't want to upgrade their network who cares? Barring, of course, the monopoly argument, I see no moral hazard here.

I also see no reason that this has anything to do with net neutrality. It seems like Netflix is simply so big they have to act more like an ISP than they used to.

[1] http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/03/netflix-level-3-telli...

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#13

Post by preinheimer » Mon, May 05, 2014, 7:01 PM UTC

preinheimer wrote: post #5

wdewind wrote: post #2

Here's the part that doesn't make sense to me, and hopefully someone can explain it: Netflix pays Level 3 and Cogent to connect them to Comcast's network. Comcast claims that only the Level 3 connection is saturated, and that Netflix is sending all their bandwidth over Level 3 because it's cheaper for them. Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or…

I think your issue is here: "Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or Level 3) tries to push more data through that, which causes congestion, it seems like a contractual fact that Comcast is either holding up their end of the bargain or not." Level 3 doesn't buy the connection from Comcast. Comcast buys a connection from Level 3. Comcast needs to…

Part of the issue is the monopoly most broadband providers have in the US and Canada.

If you had two truly distinct cable options, say Comcast and TascCom. Your friends with Comcast say Netflix sux, low quality, lots of problems. Your friends with TascCom say netflix is awesome, great HD content, too bad there's only like 8 3D movies! You'll sign up for TascCom. Comcast's board will get angry they're losing customers, and fix their interconnects. But it's all a dream, there is no TascCom, there's only Comcast.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#14

Post by wmf » Mon, May 05, 2014, 7:02 PM UTC

johnjac wrote: post #9

exelius wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Level3's issue is that Comcast is unwilling to increase the capacity of their links without payment from Level3. If Level3 engages in settlement-free peering with Comcast and their network traffic graph looks anything like the 100gbit link in the article, I don't blame them: it's a 20:1 disparity in traffic in vs traffic out. What's happening here is that Level3 and other transit providers are starting to see…

This "out vs in" comparison in order to determine who pays is a meme that won't die. I've never known agreements to be formed in such a way. Maybe before my day in the dial up era when "out vs in" could serve as rule of thumb of sorts to determin who was an access ISP and who was an "Upstream" or "Tier 1" ISP. Can someone provide a source for this?

Historically, ratios were used for peering between ISPs of the same type. When one backbone peers with another backbone, 1:1 ratio can be a simple proxy for equal value. (ISPs liked simplicity in the old days because it made the Internet cheaper than the complex telco X.25/ATM/SONET networks with their complex tariffs and settlement.) When a content provider peers with a broadband ISP, they can exchange equal value without exchanging equal traffic.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#15

Post by mixologic » Mon, May 05, 2014, 7:04 PM UTC

cschroed wrote: post #6

wdewind wrote: post #2

Here's the part that doesn't make sense to me, and hopefully someone can explain it: Netflix pays Level 3 and Cogent to connect them to Comcast's network. Comcast claims that only the Level 3 connection is saturated, and that Netflix is sending all their bandwidth over Level 3 because it's cheaper for them. Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or…

Comcast promises a certain amount of download capability. When customer requests for content that originate from Comcast's network (that would not normally exceed that download capability) end up saturating a link to which Comcast is party to, then it is Comcast's obligation to attempt to upgrade that link. Comcast cannot control the routes via which the content is returned, they must react to their customers usage p…

Not very ballsy if they've bought enough politicians and lobbyists.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#16

Post by wdewind » Mon, May 05, 2014, 7:05 PM UTC

preinheimer wrote: post #13

preinheimer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your issue is here: "Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or Level 3) tries to push more data through that, which causes congestion, it seems like a contractual fact that Comcast is either holding up their end of the bargain or not." Level 3 doesn't buy the connection from Comcast. Comcast buys a connection from Level 3. Comcast needs to…

Part of the issue is the monopoly most broadband providers have in the US and Canada. If you had two truly distinct cable options, say Comcast and TascCom. Your friends with Comcast say Netflix sux, low quality, lots of problems. Your friends with TascCom say netflix is awesome, great HD content, too bad there's only like 8 3D movies! You'll sign up for TascCom. Comcast's board will get angry they're losing customers…

Yeah, this does seem to be a core issue. How can we make it easier for people to start last-mile ISPs? It seems like a pretty capital intensive business to get involved in :)

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#17

Post by mixologic » Mon, May 05, 2014, 7:07 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #10

preinheimer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your issue is here: "Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or Level 3) tries to push more data through that, which causes congestion, it seems like a contractual fact that Comcast is either holding up their end of the bargain or not." Level 3 doesn't buy the connection from Comcast. Comcast buys a connection from Level 3. Comcast needs to…

This would all be fine and good if Level3 didn't make money from selling bandwidth. Comcast doesn't have to buy a connection from Level3; Level3 will give Comcast a link for free because they know they can turn around and charge their own customers for access to it. Comcast is really just cutting out the middleman here; and that scares Level3.

But they cant cut out the middleman. Comcast doesnt have a direct connection to netflix or anywhere else on the internet.

I think Level 3 should straight up shut off their peering agreement with comcast and watch how all the last mile customers blame comcast for the issue, until such time as comcast stops playing games.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#18

Post by njharman » Mon, May 05, 2014, 7:09 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #8

dllthomas wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Settlement-free peering assumes that bandwidth usage is roughly symmetric: when it's not symmetric, the side sending more bandwidth has to pay." I've never understood why this is - especially in a case like this, where the sending side is sending because (the customers of) the receiving side explicitly asked for it.

Because the cost of a packet is borne by the receiver while the sender is the one monetizing it. The assumption is that if you're sending traffic to a customer, you are being paid for that activity through subscription fees, ads, donations, etc. That packet costs the receiver some minuscule amount to process. Even though it was requested by the ultimate receiver, the ultimate sender is only sending the packet because…

> you are being paid for that activity through subscription fees, ads, donations, etc.

Last time I checked ISPs where heavily monetizing packet receiving to the tune of 5-10x what netflix monetizes from me. For typically slow, shitty service bundled with cable TV or phone I do not want.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#19

Post by venomsnake » Mon, May 05, 2014, 7:11 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #3

wdewind wrote: post #2

Here's the part that doesn't make sense to me, and hopefully someone can explain it: Netflix pays Level 3 and Cogent to connect them to Comcast's network. Comcast claims that only the Level 3 connection is saturated, and that Netflix is sending all their bandwidth over Level 3 because it's cheaper for them. Doesn't Level 3 buy a contract from Comcast that says "we get to send this much data per month"? If Netflix (or…

I think Level3's issue is that Comcast is unwilling to increase the capacity of their links without payment from Level3. If Level3 engages in settlement-free peering with Comcast and their network traffic graph looks anything like the 100gbit link in the article, I don't blame them: it's a 20:1 disparity in traffic in vs traffic out. What's happening here is that Level3 and other transit providers are starting to see…

Torrenting provided a lot of traffic that could bring symmetry to the amounts send/received. And yet it was frowned upon.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#20

Post by dllthomas » Mon, May 05, 2014, 7:11 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #8

dllthomas wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Settlement-free peering assumes that bandwidth usage is roughly symmetric: when it's not symmetric, the side sending more bandwidth has to pay." I've never understood why this is - especially in a case like this, where the sending side is sending because (the customers of) the receiving side explicitly asked for it.

Because the cost of a packet is borne by the receiver while the sender is the one monetizing it. The assumption is that if you're sending traffic to a customer, you are being paid for that activity through subscription fees, ads, donations, etc. That packet costs the receiver some minuscule amount to process. Even though it was requested by the ultimate receiver, the ultimate sender is only sending the packet because…

As others have said, Comcast is also being monetarily rewarded here. I think the best argument lies along "the sender is in the best position to take measures to reduce traffic (traded off against their goals)."