Why Your Netflix Traffic Is Slow and Why the FCC Won’t Necessarily Make It Fast • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Your Netflix Traffic Is Slow and Why the FCC Won’t Necessarily Make It Fast

#41

Post by ikeboy » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 5:57 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #30

higherpurpose wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean this check handed right here? http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious...

That's Netflix paying Comcast directly, not Cogent giving Comcast the few grand to upgrade the link that they were purposefully not upgrading to force Netflix into paying. EDIT: Also worth noting that Netflix has to pay every month (which is what Comcast wants) rather than Cogent just giving them $10k once for new hardware (not as delicious as lots more money!)

It's not just the hardware upgrade, the peering agreement is only free when each side sends the same amount of data. Netflix is sending a lot more than it's receiving, in which case their ISP needs to pay for peering.

Edit: I'm just explaining why a hardware upgrade was besides the points that were being made. These are the facts regardless of who you think is in the right. The argument was over bandwidth usage, not hardware upgrades. Is anyone disagreeing with that?

Re: Why Your Netflix Traffic Is Slow and Why the FCC Won’t Necessarily Make It Fast

#42

Post by drzaiusapelord » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

This is why the Net Neutrality ruling was not a big step forward. The right way to solve the internet problem is "unbundling"; that is, the people who own the last mile lease it out to companies that sell you internet, video and other services. If Comcast customers were getting a bad netflix experience they could switch to an ISP that gives a good one.

> the people who own the last mile lease it out to companies that sell you internet

The only way that would happen nationwide is via federal law. What chances do you think the Tea Party congress would have of passing this?

The FCC policy is pretty much our only shot here and makes a lot of sense. The industry will pivot itself around it now that they can't fight it. They are now forced to play nicely with each other. Yes, there is going to be an ugly interim period, but I think we're going to remember Wheeler as the man who saved the internet as we know it.

Re: Why Your Netflix Traffic Is Slow and Why the FCC Won’t Necessarily Make It Fast

#43

Post by toast0 » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 6:00 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #34

Yet again, someone fails to understand that this is Comcast abusing their (effective) monopoly to extract additional money via double-paying. First I pay for internet access. 50Mbps "theoretical max" but it's fairly reasonable to expect to get say 10% of that most of the time. Then Netflix has to pay again, in order for me to get the internet traffic that I requested. If Netflix doesn't pay, then Comcast schedules up…

I've never understood the "double pay" argument.

You pay for internet. Netflix has to pay for internet too. To deliver packets to Comcast's network, Netflix can chose to pay any number of transit companies, or they can cut out the middle man and pay Comcast. Why is it ok for Netflix to pay a transit company, but not Comcast?

Re: Why Your Netflix Traffic Is Slow and Why the FCC Won’t Necessarily Make It Fast

#44

Post by msandford » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 6:03 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #41

msandford wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's Netflix paying Comcast directly, not Cogent giving Comcast the few grand to upgrade the link that they were purposefully not upgrading to force Netflix into paying. EDIT: Also worth noting that Netflix has to pay every month (which is what Comcast wants) rather than Cogent just giving them $10k once for new hardware (not as delicious as lots more money!)

It's not just the hardware upgrade, the peering agreement is only free when each side sends the same amount of data. Netflix is sending a lot more than it's receiving, in which case their ISP needs to pay for peering. Edit: I'm just explaining why a hardware upgrade was besides the points that were being made. These are the facts regardless of who you think is in the right. The argument was over bandwidth usage, not…

Netflix is only sending the data at the request of Comcast's customers. Comcast is the company which created an asymmetric network such that their customers can request far, far more data than they are able to send. They are reaping the rewards of that decision. It hardly seems reasonable to expect that all the companies that Comcast peers with to have data flowing in equal amounts both ways since the design of Comcast's network explicitly prohibits this.

Trying to boil this down to "Netflix is sending a lot more than it's receiving" is to completely ignore WHY this is happening and really makes the debate useless. Symmetric (or nearly symmetric) peering agreements made sense when everyone had symmetric connections like modems, ISDN, T1, T3, etc.

When the majority of connections are not symmetric, it makes no sense at all.

Again, remember that Netflix isn't DOSing Comcast. Any packets that Netflix sends to Comcast's network was at the request of one of Comcast's (and Netflix's!) customers.

Re: Why Your Netflix Traffic Is Slow and Why the FCC Won’t Necessarily Make It Fast

#45

Post by pedrocr » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #29

icehawk wrote: post #15

Last I checked it was the consumer ISPs that were stalling with peering upgrades according to multiple transit providers http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9264381

Verizon responded to that post. http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/level-3s-selectiv...

It's a pretty poor response. They're using the fact that Level3 had a dispute with Cogent over unbalanced traffic to say the traffic between Level3 and Verizon should also be balanced. Verizon is not in that condition, it's not a transit provider.

Basically there are 4 different situations:

1) ContentProviderLevel3CogentISPUser

2) ContentProviderCogentLevel3ISPUser

3) ContentProviderLevel3->ISPUser

4) ContentProviderCogent->ISPUser

In all cases the first network gets a payment by the content provider and the last network a payment by the user. In cases 1 and 2 the middle network is not getting a payment because neither side is their direct client. So the Cogent/Level3 dispute is about there being the same number of 1 and 2 cases so that it all evens out and no compensating payment is necessary. Cases 3 and 4 require no additional payments no matter the upload/download ratio because both network links have been paid for, one by the user the other by the content provider.

This whole thing is about the ISPs noticing that the content providers are making money offering content over the internet (shocking I know) and trying to reach across the network and grab some of that revenue, even though everyone has already been compensated for the actual transfer of bits.

Re: Why Your Netflix Traffic Is Slow and Why the FCC Won’t Necessarily Make It Fast

#46

Post by skylan_q » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 6:05 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #25

I tried explaining this to people before the FCC stuff passed, but they just insisted that evil comcast was slowing down netflix streams.

They want someone to blame for not being able to watch Game of Thrones in HD or for fear of having to pay extra to continue doing so. Providers who fell in between the eyeballs and the content got in the crosshairs.

This is really "Game of Thrones" vs. "The Internet" and GoT won.

Re: Why Your Netflix Traffic Is Slow and Why the FCC Won’t Necessarily Make It Fast

#47

Post by wmf » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 6:06 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #34

Yet again, someone fails to understand that this is Comcast abusing their (effective) monopoly to extract additional money via double-paying. First I pay for internet access. 50Mbps "theoretical max" but it's fairly reasonable to expect to get say 10% of that most of the time. Then Netflix has to pay again, in order for me to get the internet traffic that I requested. If Netflix doesn't pay, then Comcast schedules up…

I think Prof. Feamster does understand that (he says "Comcast arguably (and, empirically speaking, as well) has more market leverage: They can afford to ask Netflix to pay for that direct link—a common Internet business relationship called paid peering—because they have more market power.") but he is taking a faux-objective, "teach the controversy" approach. I've seen the same philosophy in papers from his students.

Re: Why Your Netflix Traffic Is Slow and Why the FCC Won’t Necessarily Make It Fast

#48

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 6:07 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #41

msandford wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's Netflix paying Comcast directly, not Cogent giving Comcast the few grand to upgrade the link that they were purposefully not upgrading to force Netflix into paying. EDIT: Also worth noting that Netflix has to pay every month (which is what Comcast wants) rather than Cogent just giving them $10k once for new hardware (not as delicious as lots more money!)

It's not just the hardware upgrade, the peering agreement is only free when each side sends the same amount of data. Netflix is sending a lot more than it's receiving, in which case their ISP needs to pay for peering. Edit: I'm just explaining why a hardware upgrade was besides the points that were being made. These are the facts regardless of who you think is in the right. The argument was over bandwidth usage, not…

Uh no. Comcast's customers are requesting more traffic than they send. That is how residential asymmetric ISP services are specifically designed to be used. Netflix isn't the bogey man just because they offer a service consumers want and have already paid their ISP to deliver. If Netflix was split into 1000 smaller VOD services streaming the same traffic volume who would Comcast blame for having to shoulder the same burden?

Re: Why Your Netflix Traffic Is Slow and Why the FCC Won’t Necessarily Make It Fast

#49

Post by k2enemy » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 6:12 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #27

k2enemy wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would this solve the problem though? Having competition at the last mile doesn't solve the problem of congestion in miles 2-100 where there is still one company.

In theory there wouldn't be "one company" anywhere other than the wires. If you have a choice between ISP A who is deliberately congesting Netflix, ISP B who receives Netflix over uncongested transit, ISP C who was uncongested extortionate peering with Netflix, or ISP D who has uncongested free peering with Netflix then you just choose whichever ISP provides the price and performance that you prefer. And if all the c…

Ok, this makes more sense now. I had interpreted "the last mile" to be closer to the home than the level of the network that is hashing out peering deals with transits.

Re: Why Your Netflix Traffic Is Slow and Why the FCC Won’t Necessarily Make It Fast

#50

Post by chimeracoder » Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 6:12 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #41

msandford wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's Netflix paying Comcast directly, not Cogent giving Comcast the few grand to upgrade the link that they were purposefully not upgrading to force Netflix into paying. EDIT: Also worth noting that Netflix has to pay every month (which is what Comcast wants) rather than Cogent just giving them $10k once for new hardware (not as delicious as lots more money!)

It's not just the hardware upgrade, the peering agreement is only free when each side sends the same amount of data. Netflix is sending a lot more than it's receiving, in which case their ISP needs to pay for peering. Edit: I'm just explaining why a hardware upgrade was besides the points that were being made. These are the facts regardless of who you think is in the right. The argument was over bandwidth usage, not…

> Netflix is sending a lot more than it's receiving, in which case their ISP needs to pay for peering.

All Internet traffic has more download than upload (for the end-consumer). This is literally why ISPs offer faster download speeds in end-consumer packages than upload speeds - they know that consumers will need to download more than they upload.

In vector calculus, this is known as divergence. Traffic on the highway has divergence of 0, meaning that if you draw a closed loop of any shape, over the course of a day/week, the number of cars crossing that loop in both directions (in/out) will be the same.[0][1] Internet traffic does not have zero divergence, because bits are interchangeable and easy to create, destroy, and copy (whereas cars and humans are not).

Comcast isn't dumb. They know this is the way the Internet works. They just also know that it's more profitable to pretend they don't and extort money based on a false definition of "equality".

[0] https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/just-what-does-it-mean...

[1] It's not exactly the same, due to births, deaths, and migration, but you get the idea.