Netflix agrees to ISP speed deal

Petec

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
2,631
Just wait till Netflix and buddies have their own carrier system in place... Then Comcast and Verizon and AT&T etc are history. Already there is massive issues with Comcast service delivery and general incompetence of their technicians. These dinosaurs time will come.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
43,887
We need net neutrality now.

You can only support Net Neutrality on your own network. Google who is open on supporting Net Neutrality is only allowing certain Net Neutrality components on their “very own” Google Fibre network, excluding the rights to allow any entity to host a commercial-orientated server which is only allowable in their “very own” datacentres where the B2B details are non-disclosed.
 

elvis_presley

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
3,369
We need net neutrality now.

Not relevant - this is a peering issue, not a net neutrality issue.

Think of it as your ADSL exchange being congested - even if you have net neutrality, and all packets are given the same priority, video will still stutter. The peering and backhaul needs upgrading.

Whether the ISPs are purposefully slowing down Netflix is a discussion for another day, but even if they are, net neutrality won't help - they can still keep the interconnects to the Netflix network small enough to throttle it, while still providing net neutrality to their customers.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
43,887
Not relevant - this is a peering issue, not a net neutrality issue.

Think of it as your ADSL exchange being congested - even if you have net neutrality, and all packets are given the same priority, video will still stutter. The peering and backhaul needs upgrading.

Whether the ISPs are purposefully slowing down Netflix is a discussion for another day, but even if they are, net neutrality won't help - they can still keep the interconnects to the Netflix network small enough to throttle it, while still providing net neutrality to their customers.

The consumer and corporate world do not see Net Neutrality in the same light, Google who is leading the Net Neutrality by example:

http://arstechnica.com/information-...le-fiber-now-explicitly-permits-home-servers/

Google Fiber's terms of service caused some controversy in July when Google found itself defending the legality of a ban on servers. After a complaint, Google told the Federal Communications Commission that its clause stating that "you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection" did not violate net neutrality rules because it was just "reasonable network management."

Hypocrites really... Net Neutrality is slowly becoming another marketing tool than an initiative. Yes, the backhaul needs upgrading and most importantly scalability on hardware level.
 

Chevron

Serial breaker of phones
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
25,900
Not relevant - this is a peering issue, not a net neutrality issue.

Think of it as your ADSL exchange being congested - even if you have net neutrality, and all packets are given the same priority, video will still stutter. The peering and backhaul needs upgrading.

Whether the ISPs are purposefully slowing down Netflix is a discussion for another day, but even if they are, net neutrality won't help - they can still keep the interconnects to the Netflix network small enough to throttle it, while still providing net neutrality to their customers.

Maybe you should do a little more research.

When the comcast deal was announced one could easily look at the network graphs and see that the slow down was artificial.
 

elvis_presley

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
3,369
Hypocrites really... Net Neutrality is slowly becoming another marketing tool than an initiative. Yes, the backhaul needs upgrading and most importantly scalability on hardware level.

The big problem is this is being horribly reported by people who don't understand it. They seem to think net neutrality means that your line will run at its theoretical maximum speed 24/7 regardless of what you do with it, meanwhile I think most of us reading this forum know it's not quite as simple as that.

Lack of Net neutrality isn't always a bad thing either - the main reason uncapped ADSL has gotten cheaper in ZA is because of our shaping and prioritizing - business accounts and capped bandwidth can be seen as "net neutrality" accounts, but consumer uncapped are shaped and prioritized. If we were to pass net neutrality laws here, it would mean all the consumer uncapped accounts would be illegal, and business uncapped would be the cheapest you can get.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
43,887
The big problem is this is being horribly reported by people who don't understand it. They seem to think net neutrality means that your line will run at its theoretical maximum speed 24/7 regardless of what you do with it, meanwhile I think most of us reading this forum know it's not quite as simple as that.

Lack of Net neutrality isn't always a bad thing either - the main reason uncapped ADSL has gotten cheaper in ZA is because of our shaping and prioritizing - business accounts and capped bandwidth can be seen as "net neutrality" accounts, but consumer uncapped are shaped and prioritized. If we were to pass net neutrality laws here, it would mean all the consumer uncapped accounts would be illegal, and business uncapped would be the cheapest you can get.

We are open to Net Neutrality and is investigating the possibilities to implement an IaaS based on Net Neutrality components between datacentres. This requires a partnership "collaborative" board who is willing to invest in such a structure, pretty much the same as Google is doing on Google Fibre in regard with their agreements with content and distribution providers.

Then there is the side in which we must abide to ITIL and MSP practices. One component on the most basic level being security which is threatened by Net Neutrality, hence to state Net Neutrality:

the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites.
 

Chevron

Serial breaker of phones
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
25,900
The big problem is this is being horribly reported by people who don't understand it. They seem to think net neutrality means that your line will run at its theoretical maximum speed 24/7 regardless of what you do with it, meanwhile I think most of us reading this forum know it's not quite as simple as that.

What?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Net neutrality just means that one service won't get preference over another. That's it.

By not upgrading their peering links they are deprioritizing Netflix which means it's a net neutrality issue.
 

elvis_presley

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
3,369
Net neutrality just means that one service won't get preference over another. That's it.

By not upgrading their peering links they are deprioritizing Netflix which means it's a net neutrality issue.

Nope, sorry - you're wrong - those are two very different issues. An ISP is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to peer with anyone else, the only reason they do it is to improve their customer experience. It's outside the scope of net neutrality. Paid-for peering has been around forever, what Netflix is doing is nothing new.

Here's a great post on the matter, which explains everything very well.
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...etflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html
 

Chevron

Serial breaker of phones
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
25,900
Not at all funny, exactly what you'd expect going from a crap peering partner (in that case, Cogent, who also paid Comcast btw) to peering directly.

You'e missing the point. Look at how first it went down then up again. So what you're saying all ISPs need to do that have good performance at Netflix is drop speeds for 3 months after which they can ask Netflix for more money.

That's Bull****.

Especially in the US ISP market where there are monopolies in a lot of geographies.
 

elvis_presley

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
3,369
You'e missing the point. Look at how first it went down then up again. So what you're saying all ISPs need to do that have good performance at Netflix is drop speeds for 3 months after which they can ask Netflix for more money.

That's exactly what the ISPs are being accused of doing. Whether they are or not, nobody knows. Everyone knows that Netflix is wildly popular and growing quickly, that could also account for the drop. I'm not taking sides or drawing conclusions, just sticking to the facts - that graph is a bit misleading, it looks like it almost dropped to zero, but it went from about 2Mbps to 1.5Mbps, a 25% drop. I think 25% increase in traffic around the holiday period in USA isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

And look at the other side of the graph - they are in a MUCH better position now, getting better speeds and probably paying less, and have a proper SLA now. So it's not all bad.

But Netflix is getting VERY good PR from this, and is definitely seen as the "good guy". They have as much reason to make themselves the victim as the ISPs do, as their profits come under pressure and they build out their CDN.

Edit: at the end of the day, whatever dodgy road Netflix and the ISPs took to get there, the consumers have ended up winning.
 
Last edited:

Paul Hjul

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
14,902
Not relevant - this is a peering issue, not a net neutrality issue.

Think of it as your ADSL exchange being congested - even if you have net neutrality, and all packets are given the same priority, video will still stutter. The peering and backhaul needs upgrading.

Whether the ISPs are purposefully slowing down Netflix is a discussion for another day, but even if they are, net neutrality won't help - they can still keep the interconnects to the Netflix network small enough to throttle it, while still providing net neutrality to their customers.
I disagree this very much is a net neutrality issue and AT&T are very much in the wrong. Netflix already invest considerably in the infrastructure of the Internet beyond the point at which they offload their traffic onto the broader net* - particularly through providing hardware to ISPs free of charge -and has never taken issue with having to pony up on the investment front. The operators are wanting to impose charges of a tariff nature which would result in the operators getting free investment through blackmailing content providers.

I am also not entirely sure how you delineate between net neutrality issues and peering issues, net neutrality originated within the scope of the commercial peering agreements in the 1990s. [Several facts tend to go overlooked in "net neutrality" debates such as the fact that net neutrality primarily applies to carriers and prohibits commercial as opposed to technical differential treatment of traffic - with the very important consequence that "shaping" consumer products does not violate net neutrality but shaping wholesale products does and in my opinion price discriminating between the price of two hard capped products on the basis of shaping is also a violation of net neutrality --although only in respect of the later product]

If AT&T were insisting that Netflix invest in the scaling of networks we'd be having a different starting premise, however the approach of the ISPs/Operators in the US is to seek to charge content providers on the basis of the revenue that the content provider is generating and no on the basis of the traffic implications - which is in violation of every sound principle of net neutrality that underlies the commercial agreements that kickstarted the commercial Internet. I suspect however that the actual agreement will be more in line with simply getting even more investment into things and that the secrecy of the financial terms is actually to save face on the part of the operators.


* there is a very important issue at play here that tends not to get coverage and probably underlies without being stated why net neutrality has become an issue. The rise of low cost web traffic serving data-centre has meant that there are locations at which content providers can more cheaply provision data that the consumer (including corporate consumers) provisioning provider carries a heavier load on. In South Africa this is quite strongly the case with web traffic being hosted abroad requiring ISPs here to pay for international connectivity.
Because ISPs are generally able to tally revenue on both sides of the network hosted data could the subsidize consumer end (see this prediction) this has historically fuelled the case for net neutrality and settlement free peering with a bill and keep model at play - each provider charges their customers for Internet use. This mismatch coupled with cable operator ****ery is where things are right now.
 

Chevron

Serial breaker of phones
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
25,900
Edit: at the end of the day, whatever dodgy road Netflix and the ISPs took to get there, the consumers have ended up winning.

In the short term.

This should be classified as unfair business practices. As now comcast can drop subs or avoid an increase while smaller ISPs that don't get cash from Netflix can't.

This isn't right. The only reason this situation exists is because of the monopolies in the US market.

As for the graph here's a better one:

net speed.jpg
 

Paul Hjul

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
14,902
Nope, sorry - you're wrong - those are two very different issues. An ISP is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to peer with anyone else, the only reason they do it is to improve their customer experience. It's outside the scope of net neutrality. Paid-for peering has been around forever, what Netflix is doing is nothing new.

Here's a great post on the matter, which explains everything very well.
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...etflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html

whether the peering is settlement free or paid for generally is determined by whether the peering sees broadly symmetrical traffic exchanges, there are major advantages to settlement free peering and it really should be the objective of ISPs of all types. Having some paid for peering (transit really) by a provisioning client isn't a problem - or net neutrality issue - provided that it is an ordinary non-discriminatory commercial agreement. (hence my disagreement with you that this isn't a net neutrality issue)

Refusing to peer or seeking to impose discriminatory terms in a peering agreement due to the pockets of the other party is very much a net-neutrality issue.
 

elvis_presley

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
3,369
I disagree this very much is a net neutrality issue and AT&T are very much in the wrong.
...
I am also not entirely sure how you delineate between net neutrality issues and peering issues


I'm not disputing AT&T might be in the wrong, but it's not for net neutrality issues. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the issues at hand: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...etflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html

this has historically fuelled the case for net neutrality and settlement free peering with a bill and keep model at play - each provider charges their customers for Internet use. This mismatch coupled with cable operator ****ery is where things are right now.

Settlment free peering is the relic of a bygone era, the "good old days" on the internet - it's based on the principle that there's a fairly equal amount of traffic passing both ways over the peering link - but these ideas were created before the proliferation of video on the internet, which breaks the underlying principles of settlement free peering.

As that link explains - Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Akamai - anyone with a CDN - has been doing what Netflix is doing for years or even decades. But nobody made an issue of it, because that's how the internet works. What surprised me most out of this whole debacle is that Netflix hadn't started building their own CDN earlier!
 
Top