Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Detailed Data Analysis Shows Exactly How Comcast Jammed Netflix

Posted by timothy on from the is-there-a-market-for-non-discrimination? dept.

An anonymous reader writes John Oliver calls it "cable company f*ckery" and we've all suspected it happens. Now on Steven Levy's new Backchannel publication on Medium, Susan Crawford delivers decisive proof, expertly dissecting the Comcast-Netflix network congestion controversy. Her source material is a detailed traffic measurement report (.pdf) released this week by Google-backed M-Lab — the first of its kind — showing severe degradation of service at interconnection points between Comcast, Verizon and other monopoly "eyeball networks" and "transit networks" such as Cogent, which was contracted by Netflix to deliver its bits. The report shows that interconnection points give monopoly ISPs all the leverage they need to discriminate against companies like Netflix, which compete with them in video services, simply by refusing to relieve network congestion caused by external traffic requested by their very own ISP customers. And the effects victimize not only companies targeted but ALL incoming traffic from the affected transit network. The report proves the problem is not technical, but rather a result of business decisions. This is not technically a Net neutrality problem, but it creates the very same headaches for consumers, and unfair business advantages for ISPs. In an accompanying article, Crawford makes a compelling case for FCC intervention.

51 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. I'd like to hear Bennett Haselton's opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bennett Haselton is a frequent contributor, and I tend to hold-off judgement on these things until I read his fine points on the topic. I was recently particularly moved by his work on line queues at Burning Man. It changed my entire life. I now piss sitting down.

  2. Sigh... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "In an accompanying article, Crawford makes a compelling case for FCC intervention."

    That won't work unless it comes with a check with seven digits attached to it.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Sigh... by Krojack · · Score: 2

      And that won't really work because an even larger check from the cable companies will always follow. Hell they most likely just give them a credit card with an unlimited balance that draws right from the cable companies bank account.

    2. Re:Sigh... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that won't really work because an even larger check from the cable companies will always follow. Hell they most likely just give them a credit card with an unlimited balance that draws right from the cable companies' customers' bank accounts.

      FTFY

    3. Re:Sigh... by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      Someone needs to file a Sherman Anti-trust Act case here... It covers most of the egregious stuff, like paying cities not to lay fiber.

  3. Common Carrier by Anon-Admin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Once again, a call for net neutrality will ensue. All we really need is for the FCC to call them Common Carriers and apply the age old law.

    It has already been applied to Telecoms and Utilities, just apply it to the ISP's and be done with this crap.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

    1. Re:Common Carrier by Burdell · · Score: 4, Informative

      That would have zero impact. This is like the telephone company in city A have 96 channels to the telephone company in city B, but then 100 people try to make calls. Only some of them will go through, and that's a capacity issue, not regulated by Common Carrier status. They are not discriminating based on callers or anything, they are just "decliining" to upgrade capacity. In some cases, that could be regulated by state PUCs/PSCs, but AFAIK it is not normally. It is just up to the two carriers to reach an agreement.

      This type of thing happened a lot in the early dialup ISP days, when telecom deregulation spawed a lot of CLECs that had to connect to ILECs to carry calls. The ILECs structured the contracts with settlement money for to flow to the destination of a call (thinking most of the CLEC calls would be _to_ ILEC users), but then the CLECs went and got all the dialup ISPs to move modem banks to them. Suddenly all the calls went _to_ the CLECs, and the ILECs had to pay (some did not and went to court instead).

    2. Re:Common Carrier by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's more like Phone Company A has 100 channels to Phone Company B. They notice that there is a constant level of 99 calls between A and B. They also see that 25 calls are constantly being made to Joe's Pizzeria who uses Phone Company B for phone service. Phone Company A gets upset that Joe's isn't paying them (Phone Company A) for this traffic, so they refuse to add more channels. (Even though doing so would be inexpensive to do.) So calls to Joe's Pizzeria begin being dropped and Joe's customers get mad that they can't get through. Joe's finally signs an agreement with Phone Company A paying them money and suddenly the calls go through just fine.

      This is extortion plain and simple. Add in the fact that the ISPs doing this have an Internet monopoly/duopoly in their areas and also tend to provide video services - that Netflix competes against - and you have extortion plus the use of a monopoly to crush competition in another market. This deserves swift and severe action to show the ISPs that this is NOT to be tolerated. Unfortunately, at best we'll get a strongly worded statement and perhaps a fine that Comcast will make back in the time it took me to write this comment.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Common Carrier by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Since when were fibre cables, $20000 optics, Switch ports, and 40-Gigabit port licenses free when the link is turned off?

    4. Re:Common Carrier by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Not "for free". Settlement Free Peering is based on a mostly balanced flow of traffic. The instant that ratio moves from 1:1 to 100:1 .... "free" isn't in the room anymore.

      And THIS is what makes them not common carriers; ISPs can do this. In the Telco world, interconnect fees are required to be symmetric, for example: if the agreement is that charges carrier A $0.05 per call record to terminate onto carrier B's network, then it must charge carrier B $0.05 a call to terminate onto carrier A's network, it's not allowed to charge carrier A $0.05 per call and give carrier B free service into carrier A's network. An interconnect agreement cannot be terminated or repriced to favor specific networks, just based on the ratio of calls in or out.

  4. WHy net neutrality doesn't work by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stuff like this is why I think Net Neutrality discussions miss the mark - you're not going to fix the problem that way, you're only going to cause the cable companies to achieve the same throttling through other technical means. Trying to close technical loopholes via the lawmaking process requires a body of law the size of the tax code.

    The fundamental problem is that companies with a legally-granted monopoly for delivering high-speed internet are also allowed to sell content. In a free market, that wouldn't bother me - competition would sort it all out. But "last mile" is about as far from a free market as you can get in most of the country these days, and so we get this as a result.

    Last mile needs to become a public utility. Let vendors compete for my business, and I'll pick "just a pipe" or a content company or whatever mix fits my needs.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    1. Re:WHy net neutrality doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Last mile needs to become a public utility. Let vendors compete for my business, and I'll pick "just a pipe" or a content company or whatever mix fits my needs."

      I think you have that backward.

      The backbone should be a public utility. The gov't should assume the responsibility for the massive infrastructure required to build the backbone. Then its easy for any small mom/pop ISP to connect to the public backbone for a nominal fee and provide last mile service to their area when they are unhappy with the current last mile providers as it requires orders of magnitude smaller investments in infrastructure.

      Slashdot required car analogy, The Fed Gov't built the interstate system, the local gov't built/maintains the local roads and all the mom/pop stores are welcome to build brick n mortar business and connect to those roads for nominal fees. Meanwhile private parties are also welcome to build special roads/infrastructure at there own cost to serve special needs, and the public is sometimes welcome to use those items at additional cost EG: Toll roads/bridges/tunnels/ferries

    2. Re:WHy net neutrality doesn't work by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fundamental problem is that companies with a legally-granted monopoly for delivering high-speed internet are also allowed to sell content.

      I agree with this part of your post, at least, and have been making the same argument for years. If the companies providing the infrastructure were not making money from selling content, and were only serving as "dumb pipes", then their business incentive would be in pushing customers toward higher-bandwidth (and therefore more expensive) connections. In that business model, companies that can provide content to saturate slow connections become very important, and so it seems likely that they would be falling all over themselves to provide a better connection to Netflix.

      Instead, the Infrastructure providers have no incentive to increase content availability, because any piece of available content becomes competition for the content that they are trying to sell. That's a bad system. Unless you have an effective regulatory system, the ISPs will find ways to push towards a walled garden AOL-style internet, charging for access outside of the walled garden.

      However, I don't think this is an example of "net neutrality" missing the mark. Net neutrality is a concept, and divorcing infrastructure providers from content providers is one way in which net neutrality could be promoted.

    3. Re:WHy net neutrality doesn't work by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So the fix sounds easy, but gets complicated quickly. :|

      Break them up. Don't think about it, threaten or consider it. To borrow a phrase from Nike: JUST DO IT

      Force the companies who provide the bandwidth to split from the part of the company who sells content so there isn't any grey area issues. In order for the bandwidth side of the house to remain competitive, they'll need to upgrade their network to ensure they're delivering what their customers want. This also prevents the content folks from tweaking the network to ensure their own services get priority over competing ones. Taken to an extreme, and without some sort of oversight, the big players can absolutely destroy the competition in this manner.

      They've already proven they can't be trusted to do the right thing themselves. Time to step in with a big stick and start swinging.

      Of course, true competition needs to be in place to help fuel that fire otherwise we'll still end up with crappy throughput with no realistic choices of switching to another provider. We really need to end this whole regional mono / duopoly thing.

      On top of this, we'll need to purge the Congressional votes-for-contributions types to make sure the legislation has a fair chance of happening.

    4. Re:WHy net neutrality doesn't work by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Last mile needs to become a public utility.

      "Reform this! Reform that!"

      Everybody keeps saying that like it's going to magically happen by some miracle.You think the politicians currently in office are going to let that happen? Especially when they have 95% chance of being reelected no matter what they do? When voting, know who/what your politician is representing, and then decide if you want the same thing. Their records are easy to find now, and you can stop believing the lies they tell you on the TV. When I see a big turnover (get rid of the entire institutional republican/democrat party), then I'll believe people are serious. But everybody please, quit crying about how the system is rigged. It is a social/psychological exploit, that needs to be patched on the individual level, like any other system update. This patch however, requires a firmware upgrade.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:WHy net neutrality doesn't work by lgw · · Score: 2

      Well, this is rigged at the local level, so it's possible to fix it at the state or federal level. Local government is often more responsive, but when it's corrupt it generally can't be fixed at that level. I love to see a state step up and do this - force "last mile" into a utility wherever it locally has legally-granted monopoly status. State governments can also be fairly responsive, at least when issues don't touch car dealerships.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:WHy net neutrality doesn't work by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      It doesn't matter what level you're at. The politician represents his financiers, or he receives no financing. Our obligation is to seek out those that aren't on the organ grinder's leash between elections so we have somebody to put on the ballot. That's how they do it, and it shows.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  5. Yes it is a peering problem ... by jschultz410 · · Score: 4, Informative

    and not a net neutrality issue thankfully.

    Settlement free peering between tier 1 carriers only happens when the flow of traffic is roughly balanced between the contracting peers.

    When one peer is pushing a lot more traffic onto the other network, then that usually goes out the window and the pusher is required to pay the receiving network. Otherwise, networks would be monetarily incentivized to unload traffic they should carry on their own networks onto their peers' instead.

    1. Re:Yes it is a peering problem ... by Burdell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Traffic balance is not the primary measure these days (from what I understand), it is just an economic decision. However, the Netflix case is interesting, because they were essentially used as a leverage tool by Cogent against the other carriers. Cogent has a long history of trying to get settlement-free peering, not meeting contract terms (whatever they are), getting dropped, and then blaming the other side. They have long wanted to be a settlement-free "tier 1" provider (which is a nebulous term, but go with it), but have generally not been. They sell bandwidth often at below-market rates in order to attract customers to leverage against the other "tier 1" providers. They saw Netflix on the rise and grabbed them, apparently selling bandwidth much cheaper than any other backbone (possibly at a loss even) in order to leverage settlement-free peering contracts out of other providers.

      Any network engineering with a clue knows that you never buy bandwidth only from Cogent (or even Cogent and one other provider), because you _will_ get disconnected from somebody when Cogent gets in another peering dispute.

    2. Re:Yes it is a peering problem ... by PPH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When one peer is pushing a lot more traffic onto the other network,

      Simple fix: A Netflix client that echos the content back to the source server.

      Problem fixed.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Yes it is a peering problem ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When one peer is pushing a lot more traffic onto the other network, then that usually goes out the window and the pusher is required to pay the receiving network.

      They're not pushing the traffic - the other network is pulling it. Netflix's traffic is not unsolicited - every goddamned packet is being sent in response to a specific request from the other network's customers, and it's not fucking transit - the Netflix packets will terminate within the receiving network. Are you seriously arguing that Comcast should be paid by Netflix because they're carrying gigabytes of Netflix traffic their own fucking customers requested?

    4. Re:Yes it is a peering problem ... by waldozer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you have it backwards. Netflix does not "push data" to Comcast. Comcast customers "pull data from Netflix".

    5. Re:Yes it is a peering problem ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sensible?? More like nonsensical and completely misses the point of the article. As a great many people have pointed out, this is not unsolicited traffic, but traffic requested by Comcast's customer. So where on earth do you get the idea that

      "When one peer is pushing a lot more traffic onto the other network, then that usually goes out the window and the pusher is required to pay the receiving network."

      has ANY relevance to this story? Given what has been reported as the "trivial" costs of upgrading the interconnection points, by what other argument do you think the ISP's are in the right? Given that they are being paid by their customer's for internet access?

    6. Re:Yes it is a peering problem ... by RelaxedTension · · Score: 2

      Got it, but where does the fact that the traffic has been requested by the users the target network play into it? The more appropriate term here is "puller" as opposed to "pusher". The traffic would not be there except for the end network requesting it in the first place.

    7. Re:Yes it is a peering problem ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Netflix does not "push data" to Comcast. Comcast customers "pull data from Netflix".

      It doesn't matter. There is an imbalance of the data flow through the peering connection.

      Comcast doesn't guarantee data rates to off-network content providers. It can't, or you'd be paying even more outrageous rates for service from them.

      Here's why. Imagine Comcast has 2 million subs. I don't know the numbers, but let's use that for argument. They each have 50Mbps service. That means that EVERY PEER CONNECTION that Comcast has would have to be at least 100,000,000 Mbps to guarantee full rate to every sub. That's 100 TERAbps. Why? Because all 2 million might want to connect to the same data provider at the same time. Very slim chance, but a guarantee is a guarantee, and we see how loudly people complain when implied promises aren't kept.

      Service providers have ALWAYS used statistical methods to determine the most cost effective amount of hardware to meet the anticipated demand for service. You don't think a phone company with 100 users had 100 long distance trunks running from the central office to the nearest long distance center, do you? (Mandatory auto analogy: a city with 1000 residents with one car each doesn't have 1000-lane roads everywhere, does it? And a restaurant with 100 seats doesn't have 100 valets parking cars, does it?)

      So now ISPs are doing the same thing. And every one of them does it. Where I work, I have gigabit to the desktop. There's about 400 of us in this college alone. Do you think we have a 400Gb line to the Uni? And does the Uni multiply 1 gigabit times the number of employees/students to figure out how much bandwidth they have to buy from their provider? Of course not. We have a /16 address block, so ignoring the large number of unroutable addresses we already use, that's 64,000Gbps, if the Uni provided a full-time full-rate connection at 1Gbps to every address.

      This article is FUD and nonsense. Comcast isn't jamming Netflix. In fact, this article pretty much proves that Comcast is doing nothing special to Netflix, they're just not upgrading their peer connection as fasts as people want them to. Why? Because it costs money to do that.

      Should they upgrade? They can't make everyone happy. They didn't promise you 24/7 full-rate access to anyplace off their net, and I don't think they did that even ON their net. It's not illegal not to upgrade. It's not even a net neutrality issue, because, as this article proved, the congestion impacts EVERY service the same.

    8. Re:Yes it is a peering problem ... by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      Yes, and Netflix pays their direct service providers for their bandwidth.

      When bandwidth leaves their direct provides and reaches, say, Comcast, where Comcast's customers have paid for internet service as well, Comcast (and others) refuse to deliver that data, because they're only getting paid to do so at least twice.

    9. Re:Yes it is a peering problem ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why does imbalance matter?

      Because when peering agreements were created, the assumption was that trying to keep track of how much data you wanted us to carry and you keeping track of how much we gave you to carry was not necessary because we'd be charging each other the same amount if we did keep track.

      Large amounts of data going one way breaks that basic tenet of peering. Now it makes sense to charge the other guy for data they want you to handle.

      But this view ignores the most important point, that Comcast has explicitly promised its customers "internet access" at an advertised speed.

      No. From here:

      Performance Starter: Offer ends 01/04/15. Restrictions apply. Not available in all areas. Limited to new residential customers. Requires subscription to Performance Starter Internet service. Equipment, installation, taxes and fees, including regulatory recovery fees, Broadcast TV Fee (up to $3.50/mo.), Regional Sports Fee (up to $1/mo.) and other applicable charges extra, and subject to change during and after the promotion. After applicable promotional period, regular rates apply. Comcastâ(TM)s current monthly service charge for Performance Starter Internet is $49.95 (pricing subject to change). Service limited to a single outlet. May not be combined with other offers. Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed.

      Emphasis mine. The same emphasized text appears in the details for all three residential service levels. My statement stands: they did not promise you 24/7 full-rate access to anyplace off their net.

      There are no pharmaceutical-like disclaimers during those commercials

      There are when you actually go to sign up. And common sense tells you that they cannot guarantee those speeds to every site on the planet. They can't even guarantee those speeds to every site on the Comcast network. That's why they don't.

      If Comcast says you're paying for "10Mbps internet", the assumption is that you get the advertised speed to the entire internet, provided there are no technical limitations outside of Comcast's control.

      That's what some people assume, but that's not backed up by the service agreement.

      It's not even backed up by common sense. Suppose you buy the Blast service and get 105Mbps download. You want to connect to my system and I've got Performance Starter (6 Mbps down, God knows what it is up). You ain't getting anywhere near 105Mbps from my stream. Even trying to connect to your next door neighbor who has the same service, you ain't getting faster than his upload allows. If you think Comcast could promise anything faster, then you must think they'll upgrade MY service to Blast for free because they promised YOU that you'd get data from me that fast, and you're paying them for my data at that speed.

  6. Re:Netflix, in the parlor, with the fireplace poke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, I'm sure netflix just goes around dumping truckloads of data on the information superhighway just at random, and picked on Comcast like a bully.

    Oh wait, every one of those streams were requested from users of Comcast's network who thought that those awesome 150mbit internet speeds comcast advertised were real.

  7. Net neutrality is a constituional right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I should be able to use my bandwidth any way I please! It's freedom of speech! They can't throttle netflix! George Bush would be rolling in his grave!

    This is a ploy from Obama to help spread misinformation about ebola (Obola) on his path to further to destroy the country!!1!

  8. Re:How many engineers does it take to screw netfli by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Engineer - "Hey Boss, we need some cash to upgrade the connection to these networks."
    Boss - "What?! We just upgraded those connections a couple years ago"
    Engineer - *rolls eyes* "Well the link is saturated, looks like lots of people watching online video... Netflix comes in over this connection so it makes sense"
    Boss - "First they take our subscribers now they're forcing us to upgrade our equipment... well fuck em!"
    Engineer - "Waaah?"
    Boss - "You heard me, fuck em!"
    Engineer - "But... our customers will get terrible service when they try to watch Netflix, or do anything else on that network for that matter"
    Boss - "Exactly!"

  9. Re:Netflix, in the parlor, with the fireplace poke by putaro · · Score: 2

    The traffic isn't transiting Comcast going to another network. It's going to a Comcast subscriber who wants to watch a movie. So, yes, the subscriber is requesting a movie and the data is being delivered to them. There's no other route to the subscriber than through their ISP.

  10. This is kind of relevant... by Svartalf · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Very First Honest Cable Internet Provider

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  11. Re: Multiple CDN contracts? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Netflix is its own CDN - they will give, for free, one or more caches to any ISP, causing any one movie to transit the ISP's nonfree network connections only once.

    But this is about competition for video services, not caching.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  12. Re:How many engineers does it take to screw netfli by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    Replace the Boss' last line with:

    Boss: "Oh, boo hoo! What're they gonna do? Leave us and go to another ISP? We've got a monopoly in the area! They want Internet? They need to come to us. Besides, if we make Netflix look bad, maybe people will dump them and pay us $200 a month for cable again!"

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  13. Re: Multiple CDN contracts? by killfixx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a very salient point. Netflix already has these arrangements with other ISPs. Only Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon (surprise surprise) refused to host local caching servers. Of course, this precedes their demands for more money because, "Waaaahhhh...they're stealing our customers, they need to pay!".

    Netflix tried to be the better entity (within reason) and were told, in no uncertain terms, "Go fuck yourself."

    Yay, free market!

    *sigh*

    --
    "Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
  14. Re:Their answer to oversubscription as well by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 2

    That's quite a loaded statement.

    Business buggery is not the only reason you might not get the advertised speed.

    First of all, ISPs advertise "up to" a specific speed, which means that's the maximum bandwidth you're allowed.

    It doesn't state or imply that you'll receive that speed consistently.

    It means that, assuming the network is capable of that speed, if you were capable of getting higher speeds you'd be capped at that speed.

  15. Re:Their answer to oversubscription as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "First of all, ISPs advertise "up to" a specific speed, which means that's the maximum bandwidth you're allowed.

    It doesn't state or imply that you'll receive that speed consistently."

    Well, how about I pay "up to" the amount they want, then? I can throw that (in small print) on the back of a check I send them, to make it all legal and such.

  16. Re:How many engineers does it take to screw netfli by torkus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually netflix offered to foot the bill for upgrading the bandwidth - it's literally a couple cross-connects in a datacenter, maybe a fiber card or two.

    Oh, and netflix ALSO offers to drop a server in your datacenter *free* which caches all the common netflix streams. This reduces the internet bandwidth demands by something like 90+% since it lives within the ISP's datacenter and just needs to download each stream once.

    But the last line is exactly the point. The ISPs are also TV providers and they don't want you to have a good netflix experience. If they can passively let that happen...well of course they will. No one can accuse them of taking any action to damage your netflix streaming...it's their complete inaction that's resulting in it.

    --
    You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  17. Re: Multiple CDN contracts? by alen · · Score: 2

    except CDN's have paid ISP's for years for hosting costs. netflix refuses to pay and wants their CDN hosted for free

  18. Techdirt Article on Same Story by carrier+lost · · Score: 2

    "Similarly, M-Lab's data shows that the problem wasn't a lack of bandwidth on the part of the ISPs (i.e., no actual technical congestion), because those same ISPs had no problem connecting to a different transit provider, Internap. So the only logical culprit was the interconnection points. There was more than enough bandwidth to go around. There's just the single bottleneck of the interconnection border router (which, again, is trivially simple to get rid of by opening up more ports)."

    link

    --
    XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
  19. Re:Multiple CDN contracts? by PRMan · · Score: 2

    All kinds of wrong. They will provide a server box to be housed in the ISP containing their most popular content FOR FREE.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  20. Re:Netflix, in the parlor, with the fireplace poke by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    Oh wait, every one of those streams were requested from users of Comcast's network who thought that those awesome 150mbit internet speeds comcast advertised were real.

    150mbps isn't very fast. Did you mean 150Mbps?

    The issue is that people think the 150Mbps "last mile" speed was some kind of promise of speed to every other site on the planet. I can request a data stream from a service that needs 100Mbps to function reliably, but that doesn't mean I'm guaranteed 100Mbps from end to end. If an ISP promises you that, you know they're lying. If you assume the last mile speed applies to every connection you make anywhere, then you're the one who's being foolish, not the ISP being dishonest.

  21. Re:Their answer to oversubscription as well by David_Hart · · Score: 2

    Think twice next time you wonder why you aren't getting your advertised speed...

    And another article about Comcast throttling Netflix without any background or context.

    Backbone providers have peering agreements. Usually, if both backbone providers (i.e. Comcast & Verizon) are sending close to the same traffic between each other, the peering agreement is free for both parties. In the Netflix case, Netflix went with a small backbone provider, likely due to cost. The problem is that the backbone provider they chose sends way more traffic than they accept. Typically, this type of peering agreement means that the smaller backbone provider (i.e. Cogent) pays fees to the larger backbone provider (Comcast). It's my understanding that Cogent wouldn't or couldn't pay these fees, so Comcast throttled them.

    Because Cogent couldn't or wouldn't pay the fees and customers were complaining, Neflix agreed to pay the peering fees for Cogent. Though, this isn't how the media or Netflix presents it.

    I hate Comcast as much as anyone. I think that they are essentially a monopoly that takes advantage of their customers by increasing prices where there is little to no competition (a toothless FCC doesn't help). But, in this one instance, it's my opinion that Comcast had a good case against the provider used by Netflix and that, by selecting the lowest cost provider and possible knowingly selecting one that is a bit sketchy on the peering side, Netflix had some responsibility.

  22. Re: Multiple CDN contracts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is complete nonsense. Google and Akamai both place hardware just inside ISP borders at no cost. They don't pay the ISPs to do this, the ISPs are saving a shit-ton on transit and are happy to set aside a little space and electricity for the hardware. This includes Comcast. Try doing a traceroute to 23.79.61.240 for example, this is one of at least a dozen Akamai servers sitting in a Comcast cage in Atlanta. Akamai is paying zero dollars for that.

    Netflix offered the same arrangement and Comcast said no, the only reason being that Netflix sells a competing product to Comcast's own video on demand. It's anticompetitive behavior, period, plain and simple.

  23. End the ISP monopolies by Jodka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    from wikipedia

    Franchise fees are governed under Section 622 of the Cable Communications Act of 1984.[2] Section 622, states that municipalities are entitled to a maximum of 5% of gross revenues derived from the operation of the cable system for the provision of cable services such as Public, educational, and government access (PEG) TV channels.

    Franchise fees are fixed at a maximum of 5% of gross revenues. So how do municipalities maximize revenues from franchise fees? By maximizing cable company gross revenues. And how do municipalities maximize cable company gross revenues? By creating monopolies! By awarding exclusive license to one provider to extract monopolist profits from the public.

    Note that there is nothing inherently wrong with permitting local governments to charge cable companies fees. That is justifiable to the extent that local governments incur costs of infrastructure repair with damage from cable installation. All that is needed is a single addendum to the law, one prohibiting local governments from creating monopolies. The law could simply mandate that municipalities must offer franchise licenses to all ISPs if they offer licenses to one and that all licencees must be be charged at the same rate.

    The only reason we have cable monopolies in the U.S. is because the Cable Communications Act of 1984 created that perverse incentive. Other countries without such laws have much faster service at much lower prices.

    If federal law permitted local governments to do this sort of thing with groceries, computers and cars we would have regional monopolies for those products as well. Be grateful that your town council is not permitted to sell grocery, computer and car franchises.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  24. Re:Their answer to oversubscription as well by thaylin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Except you are confusing a transit and a consumer endpoint. Transit providers normally peer, but an endpoint is going to have more traffic coming in then going out because their consumers are requesting it, ALWAYS, but this is the first time they have been able to pressure people into these types of agreements.

    Peering agreements between transit providers is fine, but not when an endpoint bullies a service providor.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  25. Re:Their answer to oversubscription as well by David_Hart · · Score: 2

    No, I'm not confusing transit and endpoints.

    You are right that the end point connection isn't one sided. That's why we all pay monthly fees to our provider to pay for bandwidth. Our provider, though, has peering agreements with other providers. If this peering is unequal, some of the money that we pay our provider goes to pay for peering fees. In the case of Netflix, their provider refused to pay the peering fees. If our provider screws up, we suffer. We then have a choice to change providers. Netflix chose to pay Comcast instead (probably the cheaper option, factoring termination fees, etc.). But... they did have other options...

  26. Re: Their answer to oversubscription as well by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that the backbone provider they chose sends way more traffic than they accept.

    And consumer ISPs give asymmetric speeds most of the time with EULAs that forbid running servers. It's pretty obvious that they'll accept more data than they send by design, so it's unreasonable for their peering agreements to assume symmetric transfers.

  27. Re:Their answer to oversubscription as well by fibonacci8 · · Score: 2

    When a toll road sells 10.000 people a monthly pass for a lane each, and then offers up to 5 lanes at a time during peak hours due to "maintenance", and yet has another 9,995 lanes constructed, uncluttered, and for sale in advertisements to other bidders I would certainly complain.

    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  28. Re:Their answer to oversubscription as well by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    The requestor pays. That was the old system. They are now finding out ways of blackmailing the sender into paying. My fees to my ISP pay for all the bandwidth needed to get the bits from Netflix to me. Unless my ISP blackmails Netflix.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  29. Cogent is willing to pay these costs by tepples · · Score: 2

    Since when were fibre cables, $20000 optics, Switch ports, and 40-Gigabit port licenses free when the link is turned off?

    Not free, but Cogent is willing to pay these costs itself. Verizon and Comcast won't take Cogent's offer; they want to charge Cogent an arguably excessive markup on top of Cogent's costs