Semi-off topic: "Google is expected to lose $50 million in just the next five months because Epic Games was able to skirt the Play Store when launching Fortnite on Android."
Yes, they "skirted" the play store in much the same way come companies skirt Steam and simply allow their game to be downloaded and installed directly with no Steam activation or client dependency.
The linked article discussing it isn't much better. So much concern trolling and predictions (hopes?) of problems for Epic games that it makes me wonder if Google simply wrote the article.
If Cogent's network doesn't have the bandwidth, that sucks for their customer Netflix.
I fail to see why you think Comcast should give Netflix (or Cogent) bandwidth for free. Are there other companies that should get free bandwidth? I'd love to be able to do this. I get free access to the network that you all pay for AND I get to charge you for my services. Sounds like a win.
You seem to think that your opinion on how things 'should' be matters to anyone else.
Maybe I should have clarified and said Dedicated Internet Access (which is what OP will need if they want 1gb all the time regardless of other users).
DIA/Business class internet offerings from major providers have much better SLAs, better/actual bandwidth guarantees, ability to run BGP and advertise allocated netblocks, etc.
Netflix's ISP pays my ISP and/or vice versa to interconnect. They usually just forgo monetary payment and agree to exchange equal amounts of data.
Others, usually smaller regional ISPs will pay money and have a specific connection level and SLA they are entitled to.
The problem is when Netflix's ISP doesn't want to pay my (or your) ISP for connectivity or they have a settlement free link they are congesting in one direction.
My ISP is not obligated to give another ISP (or user) unlimited bandwidth for free. Cogent (and later Level 3) were knowingly abusing settlement free links while acting as though they should get unlimited bandwidth on Comcast's network for free.
This is all of us residential ISP users being told we should subsidize Netflix by letting them pick cheap ISPs who get unlimited bandwidth on the same network we all have to pay for.
The problem arises when Netflix's ISP (Cogent) won't pay for the added bandwidth they want from Comcast. The links congest and Netflix plays the victim before finally buying transit directly on Comcast's network or, even dumber, paying Comcast to add capacity to the CogentComcast connection.
Why didn't Netflix complain to their ISPs (Level 3 and Cogent) about their lack of bandwidth to Comcast? It was their responsibility to get Netflix what they paid for.
I'm not saying Netflix should get free internet. I'm saying they should get paid by Comcast! Along with Google and Facebook, and all of the other content providers on the internet.
Yes, everyone's ISP bill should go sky high because some people want to use Google, Facebook, and/or Netflix.
Good god.
You are wrong about the internet. Peering was traditionally a non-counted flow. If it was unbalanced then no one really cared. Customers have always paid for incoming bandwidth. The failure of obligation here is with Comcast - they are failing to provide content for Netflix (or rather Netflix's ISP). They are no longer a peer on the internet, they are a consumer, and should be required to pay for the content they are consuming.
It was indeed largely non counted because no one ever did things that resulted in 10:1 or 100:1 traffic imbalances. Comcast is not Netflix's provider, and has no obligation to give more bandwidth to accommodate their traffic.
Netflix was Cogent and Level 3's customer.
Comcast is not a peer? I'm sure that's news to just about everyone.
Yeah, it really shows. Please tell us more how residential and business internet connections are not subject to different SLAs, oversubscription to the core, etc.
If you are on residential fiber, like fios/google fiber, you can absolutely bet that the upstream aggregation points are oversubscribed. You and 100 other houses could easily be aggregated on a switch with two to eight 10gb uplinks.
If you are on a business MetroE ring, you are quite likely oversubscribed.
In fact, unless you have a direct connection to your ISP's core, you are on an oversubscribed node, it's just a matter of degree.
I'm astounded by how myopic so many people are on this issue.
Apparently if Netflix pays their ISP, then it ends there. Their ISP should have unlimited bandwidth towards another ISP.
Gee, what are the long term consequences of that?
Every network pays the networks they connect to. Some do it with money, others with mutually beneficial, and equal, traffic exchange.
Netflix pays/paid Cogent (and later Level3) who had settlement free interconnections with Comcast. The traffic FROM Cogent's network far exceeded the traffic TO Cogent's network, creating an imbalance that used to be considered an unacceptable practice on an settlement free link. The link also apparently congested in that direction as well, a similarly poor practice.
In the past, such a one sided imbalance would have led to the recipient of this excess traffic demanding payment for the overage OR throttling the connection in one direction to maintain traffic ratios.
Now, they're apparently not only supposed to accept this excess, but expand to accommodate more. This means Cogent gets free access to Comcast's network, which they can then resell.
If anyone can show that this is normal for the internet, or practice that was accepted in the past, I'd love to see it.
I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to the person saying this " Why should Netflix pay anything?"
Moreover, Netflix can hook into all the backbones they want. The issue is when the traffic from one backbone provider to another network far exceeds the traffic FROM that network, and it's a settlement free link.
Try to realize that providers also have to pay each other - either with equal traffic exchange (settlement free peering) or money (paid peering).
The idea that an ISP should have unlimited bandwidth into another ISP's network effectively makes that first ISP a reseller of the second.
ISPs should automatically make caching servers available for services like Netflix, or rack space, if that makes sense. (Advertisements should be designed to be one of the first things cached.
They do, it's just that Netflix didn't want to pay for that either. Every other content generator either pays for transit or uses a CDN that does the same. I don't see why Netflix or another company should get free access to an ISPs network.
The actual problem is Netflix's ISP(s). They have an obligation to exchange equal amounts of traffic with Comcast or pay for the excess coming from their network towards Comcast's. THIS is how the internet has always worked.
I find it amazing that you think Netflix should get free internet. Are there any other large companies that should get free internet access?
Thanks for this. Over and over again, people here made this charge that everyone was conspiring against Netflix when in fact Netflix was just trying to cut costs by deliberately seeking out companies that would load up settlement free links with Comcast.
Should the political winds shift, you'll still have your Netflix, but the "extremist" or fringe political websites you might visit will be given the stormfront treatment.
The people celebrating this don't seem to understand how bad this is for an open, free internet. They also seem to have dropped their opposition to "corporations controlling the internet".
All this talk about open internet, ISPs not acting as gatekeepers, corporations not controlling the internet, etc. is a bit thin when people are openly celebrating corporations kicking websites off the internet with little notice for offensive (very offensive in these cases) content after having collected money from them for years.
You can abhor places like the dailystormer and stormfront, while also disagreeing with what happened to them, how it happened, and pointing out that this bodes very badly for an open, free internet.
Samsung pay can also do NFC, which means that it's better than Apple Pay and can be used in far more places. If anything, Samsung chose right by making their app more widely compatible.
On a side note, ISPs can and do change the egress path for traffic leaving their network to address latency, peer link imbalances, etc. There's no good reasons to stop them from doing this.
How do you feel about business internet connections getting better SLA and prioritization over residential customers on the same ISP network?
Netflix knew what they were doing when they bought transit from Cogent instead of directly on the large ISP networks they wanted to access. Some articles have suggested that Netflix wanted to save money on CDN costs by offloading traffic via Cogent (and eventually Level 3).
Far too many people seem eager to embrace the idea of the receiver bearing the burden without understanding what that would mean in the long term. For those who don't understand what I'm referring to, it's the idea that 'residential' ISPs should just upgrade their peer links if they congest and/or tolerate huge traffic imbalances, both without compensation, because the ISP's customer paid for their connection and the ISP should do what it takes to give them the bandwidth they paid for and/or because it's their customers requesting the traffic.
I can only imagine the long term impact to the internet with some providers 'poaching' (kind of hate that term here) all the large content providers and then expecting/demanding ISPs accommodate any/all traffic sent their way. Businesses of almost any size will have a choice as to which provider to choose, but most residential customers will not, and those residential customers will then shoulder the full costs of the network. Should make for low speeds, minimal upgrades, and high costs.
Bankrolled by their investors. From a $1 stock price in 2002 to $163 today - not exactly a company struggling to pay their bills and certainly not a company that can't afford to do things the right way.
Slashdot Mirror
Semi-off topic:
"Google is expected to lose $50 million in just the next five months because Epic Games was able to skirt the Play Store when launching Fortnite on Android."
Yes, they "skirted" the play store in much the same way come companies skirt Steam and simply allow their game to be downloaded and installed directly with no Steam activation or client dependency.
The linked article discussing it isn't much better. So much concern trolling and predictions (hopes?) of problems for Epic games that it makes me wonder if Google simply wrote the article.
If Cogent's network doesn't have the bandwidth, that sucks for their customer Netflix.
I fail to see why you think Comcast should give Netflix (or Cogent) bandwidth for free. Are there other companies that should get free bandwidth? I'd love to be able to do this. I get free access to the network that you all pay for AND I get to charge you for my services. Sounds like a win.
You seem to think that your opinion on how things 'should' be matters to anyone else.
Maybe I should have clarified and said Dedicated Internet Access (which is what OP will need if they want 1gb all the time regardless of other users).
DIA/Business class internet offerings from major providers have much better SLAs, better/actual bandwidth guarantees, ability to run BGP and advertise allocated netblocks, etc.
Netflix's ISP pays my ISP and/or vice versa to interconnect. They usually just forgo monetary payment and agree to exchange equal amounts of data.
Others, usually smaller regional ISPs will pay money and have a specific connection level and SLA they are entitled to.
The problem is when Netflix's ISP doesn't want to pay my (or your) ISP for connectivity or they have a settlement free link they are congesting in one direction.
My ISP is not obligated to give another ISP (or user) unlimited bandwidth for free. Cogent (and later Level 3) were knowingly abusing settlement free links while acting as though they should get unlimited bandwidth on Comcast's network for free.
This is all of us residential ISP users being told we should subsidize Netflix by letting them pick cheap ISPs who get unlimited bandwidth on the same network we all have to pay for.
The problem arises when Netflix's ISP (Cogent) won't pay for the added bandwidth they want from Comcast. The links congest and Netflix plays the victim before finally buying transit directly on Comcast's network or, even dumber, paying Comcast to add capacity to the CogentComcast connection.
Why didn't Netflix complain to their ISPs (Level 3 and Cogent) about their lack of bandwidth to Comcast? It was their responsibility to get Netflix what they paid for.
I'm not saying Netflix should get free internet. I'm saying they should get paid by Comcast! Along with Google and Facebook, and all of the other content providers on the internet.
Yes, everyone's ISP bill should go sky high because some people want to use Google, Facebook, and/or Netflix.
Good god.
You are wrong about the internet. Peering was traditionally a non-counted flow. If it was unbalanced then no one really cared. Customers have always paid for incoming bandwidth. The failure of obligation here is with Comcast - they are failing to provide content for Netflix (or rather Netflix's ISP). They are no longer a peer on the internet, they are a consumer, and should be required to pay for the content they are consuming.
It was indeed largely non counted because no one ever did things that resulted in 10:1 or 100:1 traffic imbalances.
Comcast is not Netflix's provider, and has no obligation to give more bandwidth to accommodate their traffic.
Netflix was Cogent and Level 3's customer.
Comcast is not a peer? I'm sure that's news to just about everyone.
Yeah, it really shows. Please tell us more how residential and business internet connections are not subject to different SLAs, oversubscription to the core, etc.
Really? Business class 1gb internet for $200?
Where is this at?
If you are on residential fiber, like fios/google fiber, you can absolutely bet that the upstream aggregation points are oversubscribed. You and 100 other houses could easily be aggregated on a switch with two to eight 10gb uplinks.
If you are on a business MetroE ring, you are quite likely oversubscribed.
In fact, unless you have a direct connection to your ISP's core, you are on an oversubscribed node, it's just a matter of degree.
I'm astounded by how myopic so many people are on this issue.
Apparently if Netflix pays their ISP, then it ends there. Their ISP should have unlimited bandwidth towards another ISP.
Gee, what are the long term consequences of that?
Every network pays the networks they connect to. Some do it with money, others with mutually beneficial, and equal, traffic exchange.
Netflix pays/paid Cogent (and later Level3) who had settlement free interconnections with Comcast. The traffic FROM Cogent's network far exceeded the traffic TO Cogent's network, creating an imbalance that used to be considered an unacceptable practice on an settlement free link. The link also apparently congested in that direction as well, a similarly poor practice.
In the past, such a one sided imbalance would have led to the recipient of this excess traffic demanding payment for the overage OR throttling the connection in one direction to maintain traffic ratios.
Now, they're apparently not only supposed to accept this excess, but expand to accommodate more. This means Cogent gets free access to Comcast's network, which they can then resell.
If anyone can show that this is normal for the internet, or practice that was accepted in the past, I'd love to see it.
I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to the person saying this " Why should Netflix pay anything?"
Moreover, Netflix can hook into all the backbones they want. The issue is when the traffic from one backbone provider to another network far exceeds the traffic FROM that network, and it's a settlement free link.
Try to realize that providers also have to pay each other - either with equal traffic exchange (settlement free peering) or money (paid peering).
The idea that an ISP should have unlimited bandwidth into another ISP's network effectively makes that first ISP a reseller of the second.
ISPs should automatically make caching servers available for services like Netflix, or rack space, if that makes sense. (Advertisements should be designed to be one of the first things cached.
They do, it's just that Netflix didn't want to pay for that either. Every other content generator either pays for transit or uses a CDN that does the same. I don't see why Netflix or another company should get free access to an ISPs network.
Sounds like you want a business internet connection. Be prepared to pay $2000+/mo for that 1 gig connection.
The internet has never worked that way.
The actual problem is Netflix's ISP(s). They have an obligation to exchange equal amounts of traffic with Comcast or pay for the excess coming from their network towards Comcast's. THIS is how the internet has always worked.
I find it amazing that you think Netflix should get free internet. Are there any other large companies that should get free internet access?
Thanks for this. Over and over again, people here made this charge that everyone was conspiring against Netflix when in fact Netflix was just trying to cut costs by deliberately seeking out companies that would load up settlement free links with Comcast.
Should the political winds shift, you'll still have your Netflix, but the "extremist" or fringe political websites you might visit will be given the stormfront treatment.
This.
The people celebrating this don't seem to understand how bad this is for an open, free internet. They also seem to have dropped their opposition to "corporations controlling the internet".
All this talk about open internet, ISPs not acting as gatekeepers, corporations not controlling the internet, etc. is a bit thin when people are openly celebrating corporations kicking websites off the internet with little notice for offensive (very offensive in these cases) content after having collected money from them for years.
You can abhor places like the dailystormer and stormfront, while also disagreeing with what happened to them, how it happened, and pointing out that this bodes very badly for an open, free internet.
We can live with a tiny portion of the planet cordoned off. Also, no one is proposing removing it to another planet or to outer space.
Considering how many lives were saved having nuclear power over the alternatives at the time (oil, coal), it could be a very reasonable tradeoff.
Samsung pay can also do NFC, which means that it's better than Apple Pay and can be used in far more places.
If anything, Samsung chose right by making their app more widely compatible.
I suggest we wait until they actually do something and then act.
In the past, Torrent traffic DID cause performance problems on DOCSIS networks
https://people.cs.clemson.edu/...
http://bennett.com/2007/11/doc...
On a side note, ISPs can and do change the egress path for traffic leaving their network to address latency, peer link imbalances, etc.
There's no good reasons to stop them from doing this.
How do you feel about business internet connections getting better SLA and prioritization over residential customers on the same ISP network?
Out of all the cities that tried municipal broadband or equivalent, how many were not expensive trainwrecks that were scrapped before completion?
Thank You!
Netflix knew what they were doing when they bought transit from Cogent instead of directly on the large ISP networks they wanted to access. Some articles have suggested that Netflix wanted to save money on CDN costs by offloading traffic via Cogent (and eventually Level 3).
Far too many people seem eager to embrace the idea of the receiver bearing the burden without understanding what that would mean in the long term.
For those who don't understand what I'm referring to, it's the idea that 'residential' ISPs should just upgrade their peer links if they congest and/or tolerate huge traffic imbalances, both without compensation, because the ISP's customer paid for their connection and the ISP should do what it takes to give them the bandwidth they paid for and/or because it's their customers requesting the traffic.
I can only imagine the long term impact to the internet with some providers 'poaching' (kind of hate that term here) all the large content providers and then expecting/demanding ISPs accommodate any/all traffic sent their way. Businesses of almost any size will have a choice as to which provider to choose, but most residential customers will not, and those residential customers will then shoulder the full costs of the network. Should make for low speeds, minimal upgrades, and high costs.
Bankrolled by their investors. From a $1 stock price in 2002 to $163 today - not exactly a company struggling to pay their bills and certainly not a company that can't afford to do things the right way.