Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Verizon now joins AT&T and Time Warner Cable in the list of ISPs on which Netflix streaming has significantly improved after Netflix paid for access to their networks. Ars Technica notes that "[t]he interconnection deals give Netflix a direct connection to the edge of the Internet providers' networks, bypassing congested links, but without receiving priority treatment after entering the networks." The success of these deals, however, gives the ISPs no incentive whatsoever to fix their congested links. Toll roads have, in essence, been created for the internet.

37 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Boycott will end this in less than a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Verizon now joins AT&T and Time Warner Cable in the list of ISPs on which Netflix streaming has significantly improved after Netflix paid for access to their networks."

    Every company in that list needs a massive boycott. People need to be creating web sites showing a list of who's creating toll roads. (read: default slow lanes)

    It doesn't seem bad now, but this will destroy the internet if we allow it.

    1. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good luck with that. People won't give up gasoline and they won't give up their shitty media. You can depend on that.

    2. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by mentil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, I'll cancel my broadband subscription with the local monopoly and go back to dialup. But who do they get their upstream bandwidth from? At&t, Verizon, Time Warner or Comcast. Doh!

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    3. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

      the only way to reach these companies would be to either eschew legal methods of home entertainment (along with 100m other people), or shoot some executives.

      Or?

    4. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Funny

      A boycott? My dear friend are you from one of those mythical "ideal world" thingies I've been reading about?

    5. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Verizon now joins AT&T and Time Warner Cable in the list of ISPs on which Netflix streaming has significantly improved after Netflix paid for access to their networks."

      Every company in that list needs a massive boycott. People need to be creating web sites showing a list of who's creating toll roads. (read: default slow lanes)

      It doesn't seem bad now, but this will destroy the internet if we allow it.

      Bullshit. Direct Peering agreements (as well as CDN's and caching services) have been around for over a decade and in fact do a lot to make the Internet run better for everyone. The scandal here is not the peering, but rather the fact that instead of being mutual (each side foots its own half of the bill), the ISP's are using their customers as leverage to get paid for it. That practice ought to be banned as a monopolistic and/or unfair business practice.

      The summary also makes this erroneous statement:

      The success of these deals, however, gives the ISPs no incentive whatsoever to fix their congested links.

      When 60% of peak traffic over the edge is from Netflix, pulling all that onto a dedicated peering link in many cases means there's no longer a congestion problem. Direct Peering IS a mechanism for fixing edge congestion.

      The problem is that when a company like Comcast refuses to do a mutual direct peering deal with significant traffic sources, it hurts their own users. But the users have no way to get redress or hold their ISP accountable, they can't vote with their wallets either. Netflix doesn't have the option to hold out because there are competing services- the most notable being the cable service Comcast offers. It's also important to note that Comcast also owns Content... something else which needs to be banned.

    6. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The scandal here is not the peering, but rather the fact that instead of being mutual (each side foots its own half of the bill), the ISP's are using their customers as leverage to get paid for it.

      No, the scandal here is that the asymmetric arrangement isnt presented honestly, like you didnt do right here.

      Settlement free peering has never existed when one side sends significantly more traffic than the other side. Period. Its not something that happens. You can call it extortion if you want, never the less thats not how the business operates now or has ever operated in the past.

      In this case the peering agreement need to be asymmetric (one side pays the other) because the bandwidth simply isnt even close to symmetric, but Level 3 (the ISP Netflix uses) does not want to pay the difference. Level 3 approached Netflix with a sweetheart deal, got their business, but now don't want to pay other backbones for the consequences of being Netflix's ISP.

      Now given that Netflix itself is saving money because Level 3 isnt charging them a traditional price for the amount of bandwidth that they push, and Level 3 gets away with this by not paying other backbone providers a traditional price for such asymmetric peering, then it only seems natural that Neflix takes that money they are saving using their cheapskate ISP and uses some of it to route around the issues that choosing a cheapskate ISP has caused them.

      Decisions have consequences.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

      The problem with this is that most of us have no alternatives and those few that do tend to have one (1) alternative and it's often another name on the list. The problem is that these companies know this; hell, they've payed good money to make sure it is like this and they're spending even more money to make sure it stays this way. The only way to fix this at this stage is to let your congresspeople know that you'll fire them if they don't fix this.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    8. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by thaylin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually settlement free peering has always existed for the last mile providors, who will ALWAYS by definition have a traffic imbalance.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    9. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Every company in that list needs a massive boycott.

      If some major players (Amazon/eBay/Google/Facebook) took part in, say, putting a banner in their webpages when viewed over such a connection, that would at least raise awareness.

    10. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please don't abuse the words "by definition". Use instead something like "by their nature".

      "By definition" is used when an object is identified as a member of a class by showing that object has the characteristics required for membership in the class.

      A network operator isn't defined as a last mile provider if there's a traffic imbalance, and a last mile provider doesn't cease being a last mile provider if there is no traffic imbalance.

    11. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually settlement free peering has always existed for the last mile providors, who will ALWAYS by definition have a traffic imbalance.

      Most last mile providers are tier 3 networks and purchase transit. Thats not "settlement free."

      Even Comcast which is tier 2 purchase their primary transit from Tata. They don't get a free ride because they can't do the transit.

      Verizon is tier 1. They dont buy transit. They do transit. You dont get to dump many times as much data on another transit network as they dump on yours without consequences. You cannot argue around this because this is the way it is, the way its been, and the way it will continue to be. The burden is on the sender because thats the only way it makes sense to do it. The receiver shouldn't be paying because they may have neither requested nor want it. A lot of people bring up the idea that netflix users "requested" the data. The internet maintains no concept of "requested." Packets are pushed through the network, not pulled.

      Netflix's old ISP was Cogent. Remember the issues between Cogent and Level3 back in 2005? Netflix's current ISP, Level 3, didnt want Cogent to get a free ride and shut down the interlinks, but now that Level3 is netflix's ISP they suddenly are all for free rides with everybody? Really?

      There is the way you want things to work, and the way they actually work. There is good reason for the way things actually work.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    12. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by geekmux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good luck with that. People won't give up gasoline and they won't give up their shitty media. You can depend on that.

      Bullshit.

      Everyone has their pressure points.

      For 99% of us, that would be gasoline at $20/gallon.

      Raise the cost of Netflix to $50/month, and you'll see a lot of people abandoning their shitty media too.

      Given cost is often THE pressure point, the only thing you can be assured of is cheap entertainment for the mindless masses. And cheap opium in a prescription bottle.

      Gotta keep the addicts happy. They might just get out and vote again one day...

    13. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by Shatrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or maybe they get it from Level 3, Cogent, XO, Integra or some other wholesale carrier. Competition is actually pretty healthy once you get out of that residential last-mile. Also, if you switch from an ISP that relies on selling video services to one that is more focused on data and voice, you will find they are much less dickish about impairing your connection to content providers.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    14. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by Dr+J.+keeps+the+nerd · · Score: 2

      It's such a fantastic case. Netflix is the largest traffic source, and they try to run their business with almost no infrastructure. Their computing and storage is almost all Amazon -- a direct competitor -- and their distribution is through ISPs that also run competing TV services. Some fraction of the disputes with Comcast and Verizon have been over inter-city distribution. The argument from the ISPs is that while the customers have paid for the access portion, the way Netflix or their CDN partners have been using their networks they've essentially been dumping long-haul responsibility on the ISPs. When they're negotiating with Netflix for "paid" access, some of it is about CDN hosting or local interconnect rather than just "now we'll peer at 300G in SF". Because this is America, Netflix's pleas to have "all traffic treated the same because it's an Internet right" are more about infrastructure cost avoidance than about maintaining YOUR rights. Net Neutrality says the ten millionth copy of a Breaking Bad episode being streamed from California to Texas is just as important as unique data you send on that link, and if that stinks it up so be it. It doesn't get us to the obvious technical solution of a cache-box in-state (if not in-city), but is a convenient hammer to pull out in commercial discussions over CDN hosting. So, as much as you may love the internet and feel there should be some kind of totally impractical rights framework involved to ensure that there is a flag available to wrap around the Internet's abuse, consider spending ten minutes thinking through the motivations of the actors involved. At the end of those ten minutes you may decide that you want Netflix holding that hammer -- the ISP's leverage has been talked about a lot and brinksmanship is apparently part of what makes America great -- but at least you'll do it realizing that all of the companies involved would like you / the Internet as a hostage.

    15. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 2

      As Level 3 already pointed out, requesting traffic settlement is absurd when your customers don't even have symmetric connections. It's just gaming the system, and when people game the system the system changes.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    16. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by Shatrat · · Score: 2

      I don't think you break up a monopoly by building Municipal fiber. You just create a new Monopoly. Maybe that monopoly is benevolent, or maybe you live in Illinois and it's a perfect blend of incompetent and corrupt. I think a better step would be to break up or limit franchise agreements which are a big reason there is so little competition in the last mile.
      Kudos for spelling 'colo' right though.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    17. Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Residential ISP service is pretty much asymmetrical. I click here and there, and get a few gigs of movie as data. It;'s been this way forever, since when I ran an ISP off of a pair of T-1s, a Cisco 2600, and a Livingston box. One of the T-1s was all dial in ports. those were the days...

      Not only did my customers show asymmetric data (10% up, 90% down often) but they railed about speed that only exceeded expectations by 10-25%. Customers.

      Complaints that the business is so asymmetrical that it's unfair are nearly specious. That is the definition of the business. You're just extorting form the media providers, and lying to your customers. It ought to be regulated, but I don't yet know if we can get that done.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  2. And Comcast? by mentil · · Score: 2

    The summary implies (by omission) that congestion for Comcast customers hasn't improved since Netflix paid off Comcast. What're they getting for their money?

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  3. Re: IRL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    That's a terrible analogy.

    Netflix customers DO pay for internet access & bandwidth to the ISP, this is just charging at both ends. How about having a toll highway that requests payment for *both* entry & exit.

  4. Need municipal network. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You cannot boycott them while they still control the last mile (the connection to your house).

    In order to take that control from them, people have to be willing to vote to have their local government install/maintain/tax a local network as part of the infrastructure.

    Then the local government can lease connectivity to whomever wants to offer Internet service. If Comcast is charging extra for a service you want then you can go with a different option.

  5. Re: IRL by Drew+M. · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure I agree this is that bad a thing.
    Surely the congested routers will now improve because they are not being congested by shitty Netflix traffic?

    Why should everyone else have to pay for Netflix to deliver their services?

    Surely the analogy is a lot like a coal company driving their coal through New York and instead paying to have a train line built straight to the port.

    Why are people arguing this is a bad thing?

    It's more like your telephone company deciding that it wants to have your calls you place to your brother get choppy and drop unless your brother decides to pay your telephone provider for the privilege of clear calls. Why should your brother also have to pay when you're already paying your phone company for service?

  6. Isn't this what Netflix OpenConnect is for? by schweini · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could someone explain why all of this is an issue, when Netflix seems to be giving away their OpenConnect CDN boxes for free, so that ISPs can cache most of the Netflix traffic inside their own network?

    1. Re:Isn't this what Netflix OpenConnect is for? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Could someone explain why all of this is an issue, when Netflix seems to be giving away their OpenConnect CDN boxes for free, so that ISPs can cache most of the Netflix traffic inside their own network?

      Verizon has a competing (to some extent, anyway) video service. Their incentives have been aligned to make Netflix bad for customers.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  7. The problem is competition by Roodvlees · · Score: 3

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/...
    http://www.digitopoly.org/2014...

    Look at how the Netherlands organized it, we have the best internet in the world :)
    Everyone in the US knows this, but the political system is broken and unable to do anything other than obey the powerfull cable companies.

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
  8. Possible solution by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a Netflix subscriber whose ISP does not charge them for peered access, it is simply Wrong that part of my subscription fee is being used to pay Comcast, Verizon, etc. when I have no business relationship with them.

    Netflix should revamp their billing structure. In addition to their monthly fee, there should be a separate line item for an ISP surcharge. If your ISP does not charge Netflix, then that surcharge is $0. If your ISP does charge them, then the surcharge is how much Netflix pays them divided by the number of Netflix customers on that ISP. Let the people using those ISPs eat the costs their ISPs are adding, and make it damn obvious that the ISP is the one responsible for the surcharge. Don't hide it in Netflix's regular bill and make the rest of us pay for it.

    1. Re:Possible solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then blame your ISP for overselling beyond their capacity to provide....

      There was no "no Netflix" clause in my contract when I purchased the broadband connection...

    2. Re:Possible solution by RingDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lets say I pay a sub shop for a sandwich. I then pay you to go get my sandwich. When you get to the sup shop, you tell them that if they want to have their sandwich delivered, they will also have to pay you.

      At this point, if they decline to pay you, I'll never get my sandwich, which will impact my willingness to order sandwiches from them again.

      And unfortunately, you personally are the only one who can get the sandwich for me. So I can't go out and find another sandwich getter.

      That is the issue. Negotiating around an asymmetrical peering agreement isn't the end of the world. Allowing an entity with a monopoly dictate the negotiation of an asymmetrical peering agreement is a huge problem to the market.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    3. Re: Possible solution by RingDev · · Score: 2

      I disagree with the your analogy in that Netflix does not have any means by which to deliver to me directly. They provide a service accessible to the ISPs. The ISPs are using that service I their sales pitch to me the customer.

      As for the behavior of ISPs, check the more recent.post about ISPs altering packets. Specifically the linked video of the guy showing the difference in quality of Netflix direct and Netflix via VPN. It becomes immediately obvious that there is an artificial cap that Verizon was enforcing on Netflix traffic. We've seen the same results over other ISPs numerous times over the last few years.

      Before netflix it was the torrents. The ISPs will always look for ways to exploit their market control to maximize profits.

      I'm with you that without the monopolies there wouldn't be an issue. But because of the realities we deal with, this type of behavior has to be monitored, objected to, and quite likely legislated.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    4. Re:Possible solution by Zalbik · · Score: 2

      It's a little more complex than that. I believe it's more like this:

      Little Johnny Verizon opens a sandwich delivery service. He offers "Guaranteed sandwiches in 10 minutes". This isn't a problem for him, as there are only 5 people ordering sandwiches and he can easily get them all delivered in 10 minutes.

      Net d'Flix opens a new sandwich shop. It's really really popular. People start asking Little Johnny to deliever sandwiches from d'Flix. Little Johnny (being a little bit greedy) signs up a bunch of new customers. Unfortunately, d'Flix sandwiches take more time to make, and little Johnny can't guarantee his 10 minute delivery time anymore. At the same time, Little Johnny's brother (Fios Verizon) opened his own sandwich shop. Little Johnny gets a kickback from Fios for every sandwich he delivers, so he REALLY wants people to buy from Fios. Unfortunately, Fios' sandwiches are terrible and can only be ordered in "combo packages" where if you really like pickles, you have to order mustard and lettuce as well.

      Little Johnny then has a great idea "I'll just tell d'Flix that I won't deliver their sandwiches in 10 minutes unless they pay more money to hire another delivery guy, plus a little extra for my inconvenience". People will whine about their sandwiches not being fresh, and d'Flix will have to pay up.

      Now this entire time, Little Johnny hasn't been meeting his "10 minute delivery guarantee", but he doesn't really care as he's the only sandwich delivery person in town, and people really like their sandwiches.

  9. Oh goody !! by dheltzel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now that Verizon is getting revenue from the upstream side because they have so many customers wanting to use Netflix, I'm just sure they will reduce the monthly fees they charge their customers, seeing as their customers are now their product. ( -- for anyone getting ready to "correct" me)

  10. Re:IRL by thaylin · · Score: 3, Informative

    That is NOT how it has worked for decades. Sure there have been paid agreements, UPSTREAM, but not with ISPs, whose customers generate ALL the traffic. ISPs benefit much more from the service providers been there then the service providers themselves because without the latter there would be no need for the ISP.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  11. No surprise there... by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 2

    Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal

    We all knew that ISPs were throttling netflix. We called them liars after they repeatedly lied to the FCC. Netflix ponies up some dough and now speeds are roughly what they should have been in the first place. Why should we be surprised now?

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
  12. lol by Charliemopps · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's hilarious that no-one understands how this works. This is proof positive that this has nothing to do with net-neutrality.

    Netflix chose a peer that was expensive for Verizon but cheep for Netflix.
    Verizon said No... Netflix made this big stink about net neutrality.
    Verizon said no, we have our own peering, hook up to that.
    Why on earth would Verizon pay a 3rd party for Netflixes interconnect?!?!
    Netflix then moves the interconnect to Verizon... Of course the problem is solved! ...and for those of you wondering... these interconnect prices are virtually free on the scale Verizon and Netflix are working at. This entire thing has been a tempest in a teapot. This was about who had control over the interconnects. None of them gave a crap about the pittance it currently cost. The problem was that Netflix was trying to change the status quo and gain control over part of the network.

  13. The roads to and from Netflix were congested... by jd2112 · · Score: 3, Funny

    NJ Governor Chris Christie style!

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  14. The system works - this is proof by anthony_greer · · Score: 2

    This is how the net is supposed to work. lets take this point by point. I hate that i am about to defend verizon but the reaction to this story seems to ignore key facts that need consideration.

    The Netflix appliance: Why should any ISP be compelled to have 3rd party gear in their DC or NOC? The price of the hardware a small portion of the TCO...There is power and cooling to consider. What about the cost of the floorspace and the opportunity cost of what that rack space/floor space could be used for. This could set a precedent to set up devices for any other content provider.
    The problem was not Verizon's network, clearly, it was the inability to get their content smoothly to the edge of verizons network. This was clearly an issue where peering didnt work as intended because of the volume of traffic going one direction - the simple fix is to set up a direct link to Verizons edge, which it sounds like they did. Thats how the internet works, if the standard peer based internetwork connectivity doesnt meet the needs of your application, you connect directly, or more directly, to the other end.

    It seems like people are willing to throw away one of the greatest inventions in the history of humanity all to keep their precious netflix from going up in price a few bucks a month. Sad.

  15. Would Google-DNS / OpenDNS "Hurt" my speeds now? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2

    Long-time FIOS user.

    Would using Google's DNS or Open DNS negate any benefits from however they set things up now post-deal?

    I toggle Google DNS because a couple months back, for whatever reason, my FIOS was acting up and I tracked it down to that. Used FIOS DNS and it was cruddy, switched to Google DNS and it was fine, back to FIOS it was cruddy... so I left it as Google DNS. It might have been a short-term problem for a day or so but I haven't bothered switching back.

    The thing is, someone was saying that now... FIOS's DNS might redirect me to the good/fast route or internal server setup for Netflix while Google DNS (or Open DNS) might take the "unoptimized route"

    Anyone know for sure?