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

321–330 of 351 posts

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

#321

Post by nitrogen »

MichaelGG wrote: post #291
nitrogen wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is Comcast's responsibility because I was paying them $1xx a month to take care of it. Bulk transit bandwidth is significantly cheaper than the price I was paying, so there's no justifying the claim that both sides have to pay.

Cool, let's be partners. I'll provide a service you want to access at 10Gbps, for an hour a week. I've got no connections to Comcast. I'll call up my brother, who runs a little ISP. I buy 10Gbps from him, and so have 5 other customers. You try to access my site. Packet loss ensues. Since you've paid Comcast, they're now required to go to my brother's ISP and arrange more peering, right? Also, since you're paying, I s…

Sure, if your brother's ISP has a 50Gbps pipe at a common peering location, and 10,000 Comcast customers all want 5Mbps video streams from his customers, Comcast should be peering with him.

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

#322

Post by ghshephard »

cdash wrote: post #262
ghshephard wrote: post #217

Unsaid among all this - Netflix could have simply paid a higher quality transit provider (Level 3) to provide them transit, and there wouldn't have been any problems (Level 3 maintains some headroom on their peering circuits). The reality is that it was likely cheaper for Netflix to just pay for peering with Comcast directly.

They have, and guess what? The same shit happened. Its almost like everywhere they go Comcast ends up doing this, kind of like they are specifically targeting Netflix.

"They have, and guess what? The same shit happened."

What are you referring to? Comcast and Netflix just started peering a few days ago.

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

#323

Post by nej »

I think Netflix should've just announced to it's customers that Comcast was throttling their network speeds before doing this. It is the same way that current companies in the US ask you to write to your legislatures about unfair policy changes, the most recent one I can think of in California is the public/private ban they're trying to pass on electronic cigarettes which I believe is still going on.

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

#324

Post by gtirloni »

MichaelGG wrote: post #288
gtirloni wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "th…

What would Netflix be losing? A lot of customers? And handing all of them over to Comcast's on-demand service. It'd be a massive win for Comcast. There's no net neutrality issue in this discussion at all. Comcast is simply declining to upgrade its peering with Cogent. How is that net neutrality? If Netflix comes to me tomorrow and decides to buy all their transit through me, is Comcast somehow required to give me lot…

Taking only this episode into account, you're absolutely right.

I was commenting on net neutrality issues and that was obviously not related here.

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

#325

Post by eggnet »

MichaelGG wrote: post #291
nitrogen wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is Comcast's responsibility because I was paying them $1xx a month to take care of it. Bulk transit bandwidth is significantly cheaper than the price I was paying, so there's no justifying the claim that both sides have to pay.

Cool, let's be partners. I'll provide a service you want to access at 10Gbps, for an hour a week. I've got no connections to Comcast. I'll call up my brother, who runs a little ISP. I buy 10Gbps from him, and so have 5 other customers. You try to access my site. Packet loss ensues. Since you've paid Comcast, they're now required to go to my brother's ISP and arrange more peering, right? Also, since you're paying, I s…

Let's bring this down to earth. You're confusing transit and peering connections.

Netflix pays level3 for transit service (you pay your brother). Comcast pays level3 (your brother) for transit service. Notice how level3 is neither the source nor the destination of the traffic.

Netflix's traffic increases from, for example, 500Gbps to 1Tbps. Comcast's level3 ports fill up because netflix increased in popularity.

In general networks that pass a lot of traffic like this end up peering directly and avoiding transit costs.

Comcast has two choices. They can either pay level3 for another 500Gbps or they can transition the full 1Tbps to free peering directly with netflix. And yes, I consider it Comcast's responsibility to do one of those two things with their subscriber revenue, which, incidentally, most other ISPs in the US are doing.

Instead they are choosing option 3 which is, leverage their local access monopoly to force netflix to pay them, and protect their cable and xfinity services.

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

#327

Post by the_ancient »

_delirium wrote: post #309
the_ancient wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Biggest problem here is, I as a Comcast customer have already paid Comcast to bring me the packets from Netflix... That is what my outrageous bill every month is for.. They will now be DOUBLE BILLING for the same packet, a cost that WILL BE passed along to the netflix customer.

But what about the Comcast customers who don't use Netflix? They win from this deal! At least, if you make the assumption that costs are passed on to the consumer, as you seem to be making.

Costs will be passed along on the netflix side

Savings(if any) will not be passed along on the comcast side

Personally I do not believe there will be any real saving for comcast in the first place, so there is nothing to pass along, it is 100% profit for them

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

#328

Post by lotsofmangos »

ghshephard wrote: post #245
mikeash wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that it's the actual web sites making that decision. ISPs aren't blocking ESPN, but rather ESPN is making the deliberate choice to only allow access to their web site from certain ISPs. This is dumb, I think, and annoying, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. Where you start having problems is when your ISP , who you are supposedly paying for access to the entire internet, starts blockin…

Comcast wasn't blocking or rate limiting Netflix (in this scenario) - they had over utilized circuits with Cogent, who is a transit-provider that sells cut-rate transit of lower quality (and much lower cost) than other transit providers.

They score well on transit degree.

http://as-rank.caida.org/?mode0=as-ranking&n=10&ranksort=4

http://www.caida.org/research/topology/as_core_network/

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

#329

Post by madaxe_again »

lhnz wrote: post #47
jaggederest wrote: post #4

Wow, Netflix has decided to negotiate with the terrorists? I'm pretty disappointed. Edit: Having read more of the non-paywalled version, I have to say I think they're shooting themselves in the foot, even if Comcast was offering a better price than Cogent. It sets a terrible precedent, and gives Comcast the leverage to bump the price extortionately at the end of the deal.

You don't understand. This is the creation of an economic moat (a term coined by Warren Buffet.) The gatekeeper creates a toll and the tradesman agrees to pay the toll. This is an entry cost to new market players and therefore reduces competition. This toll may be increased as the biggest player (Netflix) grows in size and this benefits them, as eventually new startups have $1+ million startup costs and nobody is wil…

Once upon a time, if you wanted to trade in your borough, you'd set up a stall and start trading. Your startup costs would be the materials for your stall, and your goods to sell. Eventually, people started "owning land", and in order to trade, you'd have to pay your local baron a levy, tax, or rent. This status quo has been maintained since, and mobility within the structure only arose as a result of vast technical and ensuing societal change (the industrial revolution).

We are watching the ascension of the new barons. They will hold their privilege with an iron fist, for as long as they hold it, they define the playing field. They would be foolhardy not to.

The barrier to entry will indeed rise, as peering costs will end up passed on to content producers rather than consumers - consumers will not accept the cost rises, and market competition on the ISP side will ensure this doesn't arise - but on the supply side, large players can and will pay for an advantage, and small players will either be subsumed or destroyed. New entrants will need to be well armed indeed.

Now, this isn't quite the same as the feudal picture as previously described, as the barriers will at first be monetary rather than cultural, and have not yet had time to thoroughly entrench. If this is allowed to persist as is, however, without resistance or concern, we will indeed find ourselves in a entrenched technocracy of the foulest dimensions, with very little recourse for anyone without access to vast capital.

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

#330

Post by Dirlewanger »

middleclick wrote: post #19
jaggederest wrote: post #4

Wow, Netflix has decided to negotiate with the terrorists? I'm pretty disappointed. Edit: Having read more of the non-paywalled version, I have to say I think they're shooting themselves in the foot, even if Comcast was offering a better price than Cogent. It sets a terrible precedent, and gives Comcast the leverage to bump the price extortionately at the end of the deal.

As much as I hate the ISPs, calling them terrorists is a bit too much.

Masses of humans, whether it be the Internet or IRL, have a disgusting fetish for hyperbole.
Post reply on HN