"Different routing inside their network [...]"... actually I was thinking more of the backbone routing. They've got a big network, presumably they have multiple backbone exit points, and it seems entirely plausible that some have better connectivity to Netflix than others.
"none of the traceroutes I have done suggest that a business account is routed differently"... odd. You wouldn't expect a business account to be competing with residential accounts for bandwidth. I suppose they could be using QoS over the same routes, though. (Or just cheating their business customers. Take your pick.)... or perhaps we aren't even talking about the same thing? I'm talking about enterprise-level connections, for businesses with hundreds or thousands of machines, usually including servers. If you just meant small retail or home office connections, that's a different story. (But small retail and home office don't usually have VPN, so I don't think that's likely to be the situation described in the forum thread you linked to.)
"'peering' with someone who doesn't own a network is just bizarre"... well, that's just nomenclature. Call it what you like, the end result is the same.
I still think the bottom line is that Netflix was trying to avoid paying their fair share of the costs. Did you see the part where they threatened to generate junk traffic from customer's machines, specifically in order to incur extra costs for the ISPs? That doesn't sound like someone negotiating in good faith to me.
Actually, even if true, it still doesn't prove anything unless you can show that Comcast routes their business traffic in the same way as their residential traffic, which seems unlikely.
Of course, to turn it around, I can't prove that Comcast *weren't* intentionally sabotaging Netflix. But if they were, then the changes in the FCC's position (at least those described here) aren't relevant; Comcast's alleged behaviour would presumably be just as illegal under the new proposals as under the old ones.
So, if you change the traffic route so as to bypass the bottleneck, you get better service? That doesn't prove anything about the nature of the bottleneck.
It doesn't make any difference in the long run whether the specific equipment involved is already present or not. Any additional load on that equipment brings forward the day when it needs to be replaced. Bottom line, why should Netflix get a free ride at Comcast's expense?
My understanding is that Netflix paid for direct peering with Comcast, in order to bypass Netflix's backbone provider. I would expect that to involve actual equipment, though I don't claim to be an expert.
Still, even if all they had to do was ask their backbone provider for more capacity, surely said provider is going to charge for it? What would be the point of under-utilizing a link if full utilization didn't cost anything?
Of course there isn't "special equipment", don't be ridiculous. I said *extra* equipment, to carry the bandwidth Netflix wants but didn't want to pay for.
No ISP ever promised their customers a congestion-free internet. Like most people, I use only a fraction of my bandwidth on average. Why should other people pay extra for a level of service they neither need nor want, just to subsidize Netflix's customers?
Go ahead; no doubt you can arrange for a business-level connection if you're determined. You'll have to pay at least ten times as much as you do now, but that's your choice.
Or you could tell Netflix to sort it out - which they've now done, of course.
It seems rather unlikely that infrastructure upgrades planned for 1996-2006 would have been expected to provide the level of service we now take for granted, never mind the level of service Netflix needs. Do you have figures?
Just a thought, but it seems that many of the objections here seem to be premised on the assumption that ISPs (and Comcast in particular) is taking too big of a profit margin. (Some people seem to think that running an ISP costs almost nothing and that Comcast are clearly pocketing almost all of their income.)
So, perhaps rather than asking for regulatory changes that would break the internet, it would be more sensible to ask that ISPs - at least those with monopoly positions - be required to publicly release detailed income and expenditure figures? If there's any real profiteering, I don't see that you can do all that much about it without first knowing where it is and isn't happening.
Well... the advertised speeds aren't unattainable - they're just not guaranteed in every situation. Unlimited service just means no data caps, so no false advertising there (at least not as concerns this story).
I'm not sure why you're picking on ISPs in particular, very few industries go into that level of detail outside of the fine print when advertising. Confusing your customers isn't good business... perhaps the FCC or whoever could mandate something. Perhaps it's possible to come up with a vaguely meaningful measure of average available bandwidth for peak and off-peak time, for example, and mandate that this be included in all advertising. That wouldn't be trivial, though.
Do you actually know that no new equipment was needed or are you just guessing?
It doesn't really matter, though - if it so happens that the Netflix peering could be accomplished using existing equipment, it is still taking up space on that equipment. One day, said equipment will run out of space and new equipment will need to be purchased. The Netflix peering means that will happen sooner than it otherwise would. In the long run, it all works out the same either way.
Would you demand that a retailer give you a free TV because "look, you've already got them on the shelves - so it won't cost you anything to give one to me" ?
Huh? Yes, the electric company charges you more if you use more electricity. Or, at least, that's how it works in most of the world.
As for the ISPs changing their billing model, well, what's your suggestion? Data caps/charges might work (ala electric company) but I assure you they're a pain in the backside. If the content providers and the ISPs can reach a deal which avoids that, I don't think you should be complaining about it.
"Netflix is perfectly willing to pay for its own bandwidth needs"... yeah, right. That's why they chose the cheapest option, and when it proved inadequate, demanded that Comcast provide them with extra bandwidth free of charge.
"When I pay for 10 Mb/s I expect to get that to each and EVERY content provider I browse to or use on the internet."... then you're an idiot. That's not how the internet works.
Go ahead and build your own congestion-free internet if you like. Don't expect anyone to want to pay enough to cover your costs, though.
What *are* you talking about? It was never a question of "Netflix [...] causing congestion" it was a question of "Netflix users complaining because streaming wasn't working well enough". Netflix asked Comcast for extra bandwidth. Hulu and the rest didn't.
How do you expect adding extra peering points between Netflix and Comcast is going to increase bandwidth for "the guy streaming from another source"? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense.
As to your last point, we're not talking about an upgrade of Comcast's entire network. We're talking about some additional equipment at a small number of specific locations. ISPs do this sort of thing all the time, and they've gotten very good at it.
... besides, streaming media doesn't use all that much bandwidth anyway, in my country at least the lowest bandwidth plans available are still perfectly adequate for streaming. The difference between streaming and most other uses is that streaming uses the bandwidth constantly, rather than in fits and starts.
Now, we have data caps, and that solves the problem. Sort of. Of course it's more than a little inconvenient, so should really be considered a last resort if ISPs and content providers can't sort things out any other way. (I say it "sort of" solves the problem because it generally means you can't afford to use internet TV unless the content provider has a deal with your ISP to exclude it from the data cap - which is pretty much the same solution that Comcast and Netflix came up with. Only the details are different.)
Reports of performance improvements came in only a few days ago, IIRC, and Netflix paid what, a month back? That's plenty of time. This is commodity equipment, remember, the manufacturers have a more than adequate supply sitting in the warehouses.
Netflix is not paying for the bandwidth the customers are already paying for. Netflix is paying for *extra* bandwidth.
Data caps would solve the problem, but US consumers have been very reluctant (to say the least) to accept them. I don't think that's Comcast's fault. In any case, does it really matter whether Netflix customers are paying the extra costs to Netflix or to Comcast? I mean, enough to make it worth putting up with the hassles of a data cap?
"[...] to mean that corporations and organizations can pay to have [...] the message of their competitors silenced."
The new rules, as described in the previous article, allow a content provider to pay an ISP to install extra equipment to increase the bandwidth they have to their customers. They do not allow a content provider to pay to have an ISP block or degrade access to another content provider.
The new rules are just common sense. ISPs should not be permitted to sell content providers exclusive access to the bandwidth their customers already paid for - but why shouldn't they be permitted to install extra bandwidth for a content provider at that provider's expense?
Slashdot Mirror
"Different routing inside their network [...]" ... actually I was thinking more of the backbone routing. They've got a big network, presumably they have multiple backbone exit points, and it seems entirely plausible that some have better connectivity to Netflix than others.
"none of the traceroutes I have done suggest that a business account is routed differently" ... odd. You wouldn't expect a business account to be competing with residential accounts for bandwidth. I suppose they could be using QoS over the same routes, though. (Or just cheating their business customers. Take your pick.) ... or perhaps we aren't even talking about the same thing? I'm talking about enterprise-level connections, for businesses with hundreds or thousands of machines, usually including servers. If you just meant small retail or home office connections, that's a different story. (But small retail and home office don't usually have VPN, so I don't think that's likely to be the situation described in the forum thread you linked to.)
"'peering' with someone who doesn't own a network is just bizarre" ... well, that's just nomenclature. Call it what you like, the end result is the same.
I still think the bottom line is that Netflix was trying to avoid paying their fair share of the costs. Did you see the part where they threatened to generate junk traffic from customer's machines, specifically in order to incur extra costs for the ISPs? That doesn't sound like someone negotiating in good faith to me.
Actually, even if true, it still doesn't prove anything unless you can show that Comcast routes their business traffic in the same way as their residential traffic, which seems unlikely.
Of course, to turn it around, I can't prove that Comcast *weren't* intentionally sabotaging Netflix. But if they were, then the changes in the FCC's position (at least those described here) aren't relevant; Comcast's alleged behaviour would presumably be just as illegal under the new proposals as under the old ones.
"The home connection (with the slowdown) and the office connection (without) hung off of the same router deep inside Comcast's network."
Huh? Where did you get that information?
So, if you change the traffic route so as to bypass the bottleneck, you get better service? That doesn't prove anything about the nature of the bottleneck.
It doesn't make any difference in the long run whether the specific equipment involved is already present or not. Any additional load on that equipment brings forward the day when it needs to be replaced. Bottom line, why should Netflix get a free ride at Comcast's expense?
My understanding is that Netflix paid for direct peering with Comcast, in order to bypass Netflix's backbone provider. I would expect that to involve actual equipment, though I don't claim to be an expert.
Still, even if all they had to do was ask their backbone provider for more capacity, surely said provider is going to charge for it? What would be the point of under-utilizing a link if full utilization didn't cost anything?
Of course there isn't "special equipment", don't be ridiculous. I said *extra* equipment, to carry the bandwidth Netflix wants but didn't want to pay for.
No ISP ever promised their customers a congestion-free internet. Like most people, I use only a fraction of my bandwidth on average. Why should other people pay extra for a level of service they neither need nor want, just to subsidize Netflix's customers?
I believe it does.
Go ahead; no doubt you can arrange for a business-level connection if you're determined. You'll have to pay at least ten times as much as you do now, but that's your choice.
Or you could tell Netflix to sort it out - which they've now done, of course.
It seems rather unlikely that infrastructure upgrades planned for 1996-2006 would have been expected to provide the level of service we now take for granted, never mind the level of service Netflix needs. Do you have figures?
I disagree. Netflix created the problem. Everything was fine when Netflix were with their previous ISP.
References, please. Everything I've read on the subject - including the PR material Netflix put out - says you're wrong.
If there were any evidence of that, Netflix would have sued. To be honest, I think you're being paranoid.
Just a thought, but it seems that many of the objections here seem to be premised on the assumption that ISPs (and Comcast in particular) is taking too big of a profit margin. (Some people seem to think that running an ISP costs almost nothing and that Comcast are clearly pocketing almost all of their income.)
So, perhaps rather than asking for regulatory changes that would break the internet, it would be more sensible to ask that ISPs - at least those with monopoly positions - be required to publicly release detailed income and expenditure figures? If there's any real profiteering, I don't see that you can do all that much about it without first knowing where it is and isn't happening.
Well ... the advertised speeds aren't unattainable - they're just not guaranteed in every situation. Unlimited service just means no data caps, so no false advertising there (at least not as concerns this story).
I'm not sure why you're picking on ISPs in particular, very few industries go into that level of detail outside of the fine print when advertising. Confusing your customers isn't good business ... perhaps the FCC or whoever could mandate something. Perhaps it's possible to come up with a vaguely meaningful measure of average available bandwidth for peak and off-peak time, for example, and mandate that this be included in all advertising. That wouldn't be trivial, though.
Do you actually know that no new equipment was needed or are you just guessing?
It doesn't really matter, though - if it so happens that the Netflix peering could be accomplished using existing equipment, it is still taking up space on that equipment. One day, said equipment will run out of space and new equipment will need to be purchased. The Netflix peering means that will happen sooner than it otherwise would. In the long run, it all works out the same either way.
Would you demand that a retailer give you a free TV because "look, you've already got them on the shelves - so it won't cost you anything to give one to me" ?
Huh? Yes, the electric company charges you more if you use more electricity. Or, at least, that's how it works in most of the world.
As for the ISPs changing their billing model, well, what's your suggestion? Data caps/charges might work (ala electric company) but I assure you they're a pain in the backside. If the content providers and the ISPs can reach a deal which avoids that, I don't think you should be complaining about it.
I think Netflix would have noticed if they didn't get the peering points they paid for.
Go shill for Netflix somewhere else!
"Netflix is perfectly willing to pay for its own bandwidth needs" ... yeah, right. That's why they chose the cheapest option, and when it proved inadequate, demanded that Comcast provide them with extra bandwidth free of charge.
"When I pay for 10 Mb/s I expect to get that to each and EVERY content provider I browse to or use on the internet." ... then you're an idiot. That's not how the internet works.
Go ahead and build your own congestion-free internet if you like. Don't expect anyone to want to pay enough to cover your costs, though.
What *are* you talking about? It was never a question of "Netflix [...] causing congestion" it was a question of "Netflix users complaining because streaming wasn't working well enough". Netflix asked Comcast for extra bandwidth. Hulu and the rest didn't.
How do you expect adding extra peering points between Netflix and Comcast is going to increase bandwidth for "the guy streaming from another source"? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense.
As to your last point, we're not talking about an upgrade of Comcast's entire network. We're talking about some additional equipment at a small number of specific locations. ISPs do this sort of thing all the time, and they've gotten very good at it.
Now, we have data caps, and that solves the problem. Sort of. Of course it's more than a little inconvenient, so should really be considered a last resort if ISPs and content providers can't sort things out any other way. (I say it "sort of" solves the problem because it generally means you can't afford to use internet TV unless the content provider has a deal with your ISP to exclude it from the data cap - which is pretty much the same solution that Comcast and Netflix came up with. Only the details are different.)
I still want the internet to be as fast as possible when I *am* using it. It's the average bandwidth used, not the maximum, that is relevant here.
Reports of performance improvements came in only a few days ago, IIRC, and Netflix paid what, a month back? That's plenty of time. This is commodity equipment, remember, the manufacturers have a more than adequate supply sitting in the warehouses.
Netflix is not paying for the bandwidth the customers are already paying for. Netflix is paying for *extra* bandwidth.
Data caps would solve the problem, but US consumers have been very reluctant (to say the least) to accept them. I don't think that's Comcast's fault. In any case, does it really matter whether Netflix customers are paying the extra costs to Netflix or to Comcast? I mean, enough to make it worth putting up with the hassles of a data cap?
"[...] to mean that corporations and organizations can pay to have [...] the message of their competitors silenced."
The new rules, as described in the previous article, allow a content provider to pay an ISP to install extra equipment to increase the bandwidth they have to their customers. They do not allow a content provider to pay to have an ISP block or degrade access to another content provider.
The new rules are just common sense. ISPs should not be permitted to sell content providers exclusive access to the bandwidth their customers already paid for - but why shouldn't they be permitted to install extra bandwidth for a content provider at that provider's expense?