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

Observations of an Internet Middleman

blog.level3.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 180 posts

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#51

Post by josephlord »

revelation wrote: post #46
_stephan wrote: post #42

Does anyone have an idea what the European ISP is that refuses to provide enough peering capacity?

They said its not from the UK and judging from their connection points, I guess its Deutsche Telekom.

Don't know they described them as a monopoly position and cable is pretty strong in Germany. I think Spain or Italy might be better guesses.

Telefonica in Spain might be a reasonable guess. Ono the cable company isn't huge.

I think Telecom Italian is dominant in Italy and there is virtually no cable at all so that would be my guess.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#52

Post by peterwwillis »

cortesoft wrote: post #25
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 a big problem with your reasoning centers on word choice; you phrased it as Level 3 having a contract that says "we get to send this much data per month", and then Level 3 attempting to send more data than that agreement. However, you must remember that every single packet that Level 3 sends to the Comcast network is a packet that was requested BY A COMCAST CUSTOMER. Level 3 isn't just deciding to send a bunc…

"Level 3 is ONLY sending the traffic to Comcast that Comcast is requesting; it is THEIR customers who are creating this demand for Level 3's customer's content."

This still misses the mark.

Netflix creates a service on Level3 that Comcast customers want. So Netflix/Level3 are responsible for making a product that people want to use, and Comcast customers are responsible for wanting to use that product and increasing bandwidth use. Neither Level3 nor Comcast want to pay more money just because Netflix and Comcast customers want to use more tubes, so both Level3 and Comcast wash their hands of any responsibility for the networks they both run.

In a very real sense, both Level3 and Comcast are equally responsible for the increase in traffic [in this case]. Yet neither seem to accept their share in the cost. If it's because it's hard for Level3 to prove, they should put up some money to shore up the connection, and then write a public letter to Comcast customers telling them how Comcast is shorting them and to get angry.

(Sadly, many customers have no alternative provider, so their only option would be to quit the internet, and nobody's going to do that)

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#53

Post by exelius »

jessaustin wrote: post #44
venomsnake wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Indeed: perhaps the answer to the symmetry argument is for Netflix clients to just start uploading scads of random data while the movie is streaming. Then the traffic will be "symmetric", although Comcast won't like it after all the last-mile upload links are saturated and customers can't do anything online.

Netflix hasn't done this (and likely won't) because would make it difficult/impossible to control the quality of their service. P2P connections are a bit of a crap-shoot based on things like router configuration, device type and resources. For example, P2P wouldn't work as well on an iPad where you're only caching a few hundred megs of video (and not the whole video) at any given time.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#54

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

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…

The big trouble is that we need settlement-free peering, or we'll have a very different sort of internet, or maybe none at all. Though it's hard for some to remember (or to believe), there were big consumer networks prior to the advent of consumer-oriented Internet. Compuserve and AOL were their own networks. And they were abysmal. Peering not only ruined that business model, it managed to co-opt those networks and assimilate them into the Internet proper.

If peering is untenable because it leads to outcomes like the one we have now (Netflix) where it is fundamentally unfair to one party (assuming that is the case) or the other, then we're all screwed. There might not be a fair solution that still manages to resemble the Internet.

In one alternative, the Comcasts and the AT&Ts are smited and no longer exist, and Level 3 goes into the consumer internet business, connecting things end-to-end. That's not something we could trust them with. Same if Comcast replaces Level 3.

In another, Netflix continues to pay the extortion (if it is that) which we have little doubt that Comcast will continue to ratchet up the price for. Or Comcast has to shoulder that burden alone (and can't charge customers extra for doing so, without people screaming "net neutrality!").

Or maybe services like Netflix just can't exist in such an environment. Also a bad outcome.

Or god help us, internet infrastructure is nationalized, and the same people who manage our roads and traffic lights take over.

Am I blowing this out of proportion?

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#55

Post by josephlord »

wdewind wrote: post #12
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…

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 a…

> 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.

When Comcast let links to peers get saturated it is a network neutrality issue. Those services they provide will perform and competitors will not. Those who pay for access will also perform better than those who don't pay. It is by definition not neutral.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#58

Post by dllthomas »

exelius wrote: post #49
dllthomas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)."

They are rewarded for providing access; not for passing individual packets. There's a difference.

How precisely are they providing access if they do not pass individual packets?

Edited to add: It's certainly true they are not rewarded for the marginal packet, but then neither is Netflix (given their subscription based model).

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#59

Post by dllthomas »

exelius wrote: post #53
jessaustin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed: perhaps the answer to the symmetry argument is for Netflix clients to just start uploading scads of random data while the movie is streaming. Then the traffic will be "symmetric", although Comcast won't like it after all the last-mile upload links are saturated and customers can't do anything online.

Netflix hasn't done this (and likely won't) because would make it difficult/impossible to control the quality of their service. P2P connections are a bit of a crap-shoot based on things like router configuration, device type and resources. For example, P2P wouldn't work as well on an iPad where you're only caching a few hundred megs of video (and not the whole video) at any given time.

I don't think the parent meant to imply a P2P implementation of Netflix streaming video, just that Netflix is perfectly capable of making that ratio balance out by uploading crap from the clients they have (partial) control over - which would then be traffic coming from Comcast's network.

Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman

#60

Post by dec0dedab0de »

peterwwillis wrote: post #52
cortesoft wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a big problem with your reasoning centers on word choice; you phrased it as Level 3 having a contract that says "we get to send this much data per month", and then Level 3 attempting to send more data than that agreement. However, you must remember that every single packet that Level 3 sends to the Comcast network is a packet that was requested BY A COMCAST CUSTOMER. Level 3 isn't just deciding to send a bunc…

"Level 3 is ONLY sending the traffic to Comcast that Comcast is requesting; it is THEIR customers who are creating this demand for Level 3's customer's content." This still misses the mark. Netflix creates a service on Level3 that Comcast customers want. So Netflix/Level3 are responsible for making a product that people want to use, and Comcast customers are responsible for wanting to use that product and increasing…

I'm pretty sure the article just stated that Level3 is willing to upgrade their equipment, but the broadband provider(likely comcast) is not. Are you suggesting it is a lie?
Post reply on HN