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

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

freedom-to-tinker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 112 posts

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

#91

Post by wmf »

ikeboy wrote: post #83
msandford wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Comcast has historically been a consumer ISP, not a transit provider. Consumer ISPs have traditionally had to buy service from transit providers in order to give their customers access to the internet. So in this case your monthly service fee went partially for the last mile and partially for the actual internet connection from the transit provider. Bandwidth is expensive. As some ISPs got bigger, they were able t…

Isn't the last mile getting used much more than previously, without prices going up? Is it valid to look at this as paying for that, and if CDNs can't pay, then end user prices will have to go up?

I agree with msandford that Moore's Law is supposed to take care of this. Assuming that it doesn't (e.g. the "exaflood"), we come to the trickiest part of net neutrality.

If extra money has to come from somewhere, I think it's better for the Internet ecosystem for all those costs to be passed on to the customer as price increases, but obviously a lot of customers are more concerned about their own bill than the health of innovation in the Internet.

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

#92

Post by jmccree »

pedrocr wrote: post #45
ikeboy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) ContentProvider Level3 Cogent ISP User 2) ContentProvider Cogent Level3 ISP User 3) ContentProvider Level3->ISP User 4) Conte…

Verizon acquired the Tier 1 transit network of UUNet/Worldcom. It has a huge transit/datacenter business. ATT(SBC+BellSouth) has Tier 1 transit network of the old ATT long distance. Centurylink has the old Qwest Tier 1 network. One of the things overlooked in the peering disputes is that many of the ISPs ended up merging/buying Tier 1 transit networks.

Netflix is one of the first ContentProviders to be pumping so much traffic that they will imbalance the peering traffic ratios of any almost any Tier 1 they buy transit/CDN from, except for probably Google, which ended up doing what Netflix is doing now: paid peering.

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

#93

Post by pedrocr »

jmccree wrote: post #92
pedrocr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) ContentProvider Level3 Cogent ISP User 2) ContentProvider Cogent Level3 ISP User 3) ContentProvider Level3->ISP User 4) Conte…

Verizon acquired the Tier 1 transit network of UUNet/Worldcom. It has a huge transit/datacenter business. ATT(SBC+BellSouth) has Tier 1 transit network of the old ATT long distance. Centurylink has the old Qwest Tier 1 network. One of the things overlooked in the peering disputes is that many of the ISPs ended up merging/buying Tier 1 transit networks. Netflix is one of the first ContentProviders to be pumping so muc…

> Netflix is one of the first ContentProviders to be pumping so much traffic that they will imbalance the peering traffic ratios of any almost any Tier 1 they buy transit/CDN from

That's only relevant if the transit/CDN is actually peering with another Tier 1 provider to deliver the Netflix traffic (cases 1/2). What's been in the news has been cases 3/4 where there's a single transit provider in the picture and there's no reason for the ISP not to accept the content with no compensation for the asymmetry as it has a client paying him for that service.

> except for probably Google, which ended up doing what Netflix is doing now: paid peering.

Do you mean Google is also paying ISPs for access to users like Netflix has had to? Because if you mean Google is having to do paid peering with transit providers because their traffic is asymmetric that would just be normal payment for transit, as if Level3/Cogent/etc where providing transit to them.

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

#94

Post by jmccree »

pedrocr wrote: post #93
jmccree wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verizon acquired the Tier 1 transit network of UUNet/Worldcom. It has a huge transit/datacenter business. ATT(SBC+BellSouth) has Tier 1 transit network of the old ATT long distance. Centurylink has the old Qwest Tier 1 network. One of the things overlooked in the peering disputes is that many of the ISPs ended up merging/buying Tier 1 transit networks. Netflix is one of the first ContentProviders to be pumping so muc…

> Netflix is one of the first ContentProviders to be pumping so much traffic that they will imbalance the peering traffic ratios of any almost any Tier 1 they buy transit/CDN from That's only relevant if the transit/CDN is actually peering with another Tier 1 provider to deliver the Netflix traffic (cases 1/2). What's been in the news has been cases 3/4 where there's a single transit provider in the picture and there…

Verizon (and ATT, and CenturyLink) are Tier 1 transit networks for peering operations. If Level3s peering traffic ratio are off balanced by netflix's traffic, I see no reason why Verizon shouldn't do the exact thing Level3 did to Cogent back in the day. Also, keep in mind Netflix is using Level3's CDN service, so you have a scenario on the flipside where Level3 has become a transit network and ContentProvider also.

The issue is really that the idea of transit providers in general are becoming obsolete. So much fiber was laid, with DWDM and further subdivision abilities, it costs comparatively nothing to get a nationwide network these days. That was Cogent's entire business model, buy cheap fiber, sell transit for almost nothing to content providers, practically (in some cases, actually) give away transit to ISPs/businesses to keep their traffic ratios as balanced as possible.

Now, we're in a situation where it's not technically or financially hard to have a presence in every regional peering point. The major content providers don't need transit providers (or in the case of Level3's CDN, are already provider) except out of convenience and their access to settlement free peering. The major ISPs have no need for transit providers(or are already providers), as all the content providers wants to peer with them, and most of them have nationwide networks to do so. (see comcast: http://business.comcast.com/images/default-source/about-us/t... )

Unregulated peering has lead to the cost of transit plummeting to almost nothing. ( http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-H... ) We've just hit an interesting point where 2 contentproviders (Netflix and Youtube) are half of all internet traffic, and the eyeball networks are all basically tier 1 transit providers. There's basically unlimited choice for transit providers for ContentProviders, but each eyeball only has 1-3 ISPs to choose from.

My thoughts are rather than attempting to regulate transit/peering, regulate that last mile network and let people choose their own transit provider. Back in the DSL days, I used a local ISP that provided cheaper/better service than our telco. If I could pay a flat $x/mo for 1gb connection to a transit provider of my choice, I'm sure Google or Level3 would offer cheap uncongested access.

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

#95

Post by jmccree »

vlan0 wrote: post #60

I have always felt that this issue has been overcomplicated. It seems what this really stems from is the classic ISP business model. From a pure network design standpoint, nearly every network has an uplink that is not large enough to sustain simultaneous high usage from most, or all, of its devices. Your classic endpoint data closet example would be a 48-port switch with 1Gbps access ports, and a 10-20Gbps uplink. T…

Just as few as 5 years ago 50-100x over-subscription rates were common for ISPs. For example 100 homes with 10mb connections would be fed by 10-20mbps. The reality was much closer to 48 port 100mbps switches having 100mb uplinks. Netflix (and other streaming services) have been a huge shock to their business models.

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

#96

Post by ikeboy »

msandford wrote: post #90
ikeboy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the last mile getting used much more than previously, without prices going up? Is it valid to look at this as paying for that, and if CDNs can't pay, then end user prices will have to go up?

Where on earth are the prices not going up? I used to get cable internet for $40/mo and now it's more like $60/mo. I had to buy the DOCSIS 3 modem for my house, so they're not paying for that. I suspect that they had to buy new modems on their end, but my modem was only about $100 so I can't imagine that theirs was more than $100 especially if they're buying millions of them. They haven't upgraded the coax that runs…

My family's bill has gone down to around $35/mo.

Speedtest gives me around 50/10.

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

#97

Post by ikeboy »

wmf wrote: post #91
ikeboy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the last mile getting used much more than previously, without prices going up? Is it valid to look at this as paying for that, and if CDNs can't pay, then end user prices will have to go up?

I agree with msandford that Moore's Law is supposed to take care of this. Assuming that it doesn't (e.g. the "exaflood"), we come to the trickiest part of net neutrality. If extra money has to come from somewhere, I think it's better for the Internet ecosystem for all those costs to be passed on to the customer as price increases, but obviously a lot of customers are more concerned about their own bill than the healt…

I think Netflix customers should be paying for Netflix data. If an ISP can't charge netflix and instead raises the price to end users, they're basically charging everyone for Netflix users. If I don't use netflix, why should I subsidise those who do?

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

#98

Post by msandford »

ikeboy wrote: post #97
wmf wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with msandford that Moore's Law is supposed to take care of this. Assuming that it doesn't (e.g. the "exaflood"), we come to the trickiest part of net neutrality. If extra money has to come from somewhere, I think it's better for the Internet ecosystem for all those costs to be passed on to the customer as price increases, but obviously a lot of customers are more concerned about their own bill than the healt…

I think Netflix customers should be paying for Netflix data. If an ISP can't charge netflix and instead raises the price to end users, they're basically charging everyone for Netflix users. If I don't use netflix, why should I subsidise those who do?

> I think Netflix customers should be paying for Netflix data.

They are. They're buying 50/5 or 50/10 internet and then asking their ISP to (horror of horrors!) make good on their claim. If the ISP isn't DRAMATICALLY overselling their capacity, things are totally fine. If they can actually deliver on 10% of what they're "promising" (but have cleverly worded the contract to avoid having to actually make good on those claims, a shady practice also), there are no problems with Netflix whatsoever.

Level3 offered to pay for the direct cost of the upgrades, namely a few grand for the fiber transceivers on Comcast's side of the peering point in the carrier hotel. That would mean it's a "free" upgrade, and no end-users are paying for it. But Comcast didn't bite.

That makes your objection COMPLETELY nonsensical.

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

#99

Post by ikeboy »

msandford wrote: post #98
ikeboy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Netflix customers should be paying for Netflix data. If an ISP can't charge netflix and instead raises the price to end users, they're basically charging everyone for Netflix users. If I don't use netflix, why should I subsidise those who do?

> I think Netflix customers should be paying for Netflix data. They are. They're buying 50/5 or 50/10 internet and then asking their ISP to (horror of horrors!) make good on their claim. If the ISP isn't DRAMATICALLY overselling their capacity, things are totally fine. If they can actually deliver on 10% of what they're "promising" (but have cleverly worded the contract to avoid having to actually make good on those…

>They are. They're buying 50/5 or 50/10 internet and then asking their ISP to (horror of horrors!) make good on their claim. If the ISP isn't DRAMATICALLY overselling their capacity, things are totally fine.

The question is whether all consumers' prices should go up, or Netflix prices should go up. In the first case, consumers are subsidising netflix for those that use it.

>Level3 offered to pay for the direct cost of the upgrades, namely a few grand for the fiber transceivers on Comcast's side of the peering point in the carrier hotel. That would mean it's a "free" upgrade, and no end-users are paying for it. But Comcast didn't bite.

This is meaningless. As I said elsewhere, they are not complaining about the cost of the upgrade. They're complaining about the cost of taking the extra data. That cost is what would either be passed on to users, or to Netflix. Talking about the direct cost is missing the point.

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

#100

Post by mcguire »

ikeboy wrote: post #84
mcguire wrote: post #62

I'm having significant difficulties with this paragraph: " Comcast claims that Netflix was sending traffic at such high volumes as to intentionally congest the links between different transit ISPs and Comcast, essentially taking a page from Norton’s “peering playbook” and forcing Comcast and its peers (i.e., the transit providers, Cogent, Level 3, Tata, and others) to upgrade capacity one-by-one, before sending traff…

>As an aside, I find Feamster's comment reply, "What is false in Oliver’s presentation (and many of the claims in the popular press) is his claim about what causes* that slowdown. The cause of the slowdown is congestion, not intentional throttling,*" to be simply disingenuous. What exactly is the difference between intentional throttling and intentionally introducing congestion by not upgrading inadequate peering rel…

I thought that was from his comment. Did I miss a later one?

It was paid; it succeeded in getting Netflix to write them a check. And it may not be strictly "prioritization", but to me the intent means more than the letter.

Post reply on HN