That's news to me. I don't see why Netflix would care where the residential customer is located. They can geolocate IP address regardless of the peering point to block international traffic as needed. I'm certainly transporting traffic a lot farther than across IL to get to peering points in Chicago, Atlanta or Dallas. If you check peeringdb.com, Netflix doesn't have a peering point closer to Southern IL that Chicago anyway. They don't look to be in St Louis or Davenport.
There are two main answers to the second question.
Cable ISPs are originally video providers, so they have a financial incentive to impair an online video service. FTTH services are also big into Triple Play so that's why Verizon and AT&T are being jerks. If you look at traditional DSL companies like Frontier, Windstream or Centurylink they are not rattling their sabers about how Netflix is 'using' their network. These companies only sell video by bundling Satellite with their service, and they only do that to compete with Cable on Triple Play. God knows they are having trouble in the copper last mile, but they're at least trying to do the right thing by their customers on the peering side.
Also, online video is the largest source of bandwidth usage, and Netflix is the largest source of online video. Impairing that traffic, causing your customers to drop down from HD to SD resolutions, reduces your network load and lets you slow down upgrades elsewhere on the network. Choke at the peering point where network is cheap, save money in the regional transport where it is expensive. It doesn't even require special traffic shaping routers. You know everything on those peering links is video, just stop upgrading them. Hulu is a lobotomized alternative pushed by the television networks. They dont have enough money to squeeze or enough traffic to be a problem. Amazon and Google generate tons of business traffic as well through cloud services and of course the search engine so impairing those ASes would piss off the most valuable customers the ISP has.
So that's why Netflix is singled out. Hulu and Vimeo and so forth are small potatoes, Amazon and Google are not to be #$%&ed with.
The problem is Netflix refuses to sign reciprocal peering agreements.
What? I work in the industry too, our network has multiple dedicated 10GE peering ports with Netflix in every major IXP where we have a presence. Netflix is easy to work with on peering because it's very much in their interest not to use Level3, Cogent, or other transit providers at all. The point about Netflix using transit providers that are relatively more expensive to the ISP on the other end may be valid, but is any ISP with more than a few thousand customers should be peering directly with Netflix anyway. https://www.netflix.com/openco...
Netflix does have a CDN program. They will provide a caching appliance free of charge to ISPs which will immediately reduce the load on that ISPs network. The only reason not to participate is if the goal is not to provide service and reduce costs, but to artificially choke back Netflix to make the ISPs own video product more competitive. The Open Connect appliance is actually a pretty cool design. https://www.netflix.com/openco...
Replying to my own comment here, but Content Delivery Networks aka Caching is also a win-win for everyone. It keeps IP traffic local and cuts down on the amount of bandwidth that has to leave the ISPs network and burn up transport bandwidth and possibly also increased transit costs. The customer gets faster service, the ISP gets reduced costs, the Content Provider has a better product. This is also something we need more of for the Internet to continue to grow.
I agree, this is really about the ISPs actually providing the product that they've sold and there's no need to get into what 'should' happen or what people 'deserve'. I wouldn't put too much weight on the article author's description of how the Internet works. He gets some of the concepts right, but the implications wrong. Peering is a win-win for absolutely everyone. It's not preferential treatment, it's a way for two networks to reduce both of their IP transit monthly bills. We don't need less peering, we need more peering. The only traffic that should be hitting paid transit for an ISP are packets heading for smaller networks and the other side of the globe, which are not within reach to peer with. The US network is built on direct peering, it wouldn't work at all without it. We are slowly catching up to the EU where peering fabrics are more popular. This means that an ISP can use one port to peer with dozens or hundreds of other networks. Peering doesn't disadvantage smaller ISPs and content providers, because it's still more affordable for them than buying transit.
The lowest estimate on Wikipedia is 23 million. Most of them are closer to 40. That's pretty much the combined population of the two largest cities in China, Beijing and Shanghai, dead in the space of a few years.
I'm not saying they're not worse, I'm saying that being the victim of something doesn't make people less likely to do that to someone else. I'll bet you that right now as we speak there is a 1 legged guy somewhere in Africa setting a land-mine.
I was referring to the CCP. They may be tied with the KMT in terms of oppressive quality, but the CCP is the undisputed world leader in terms of quantity of people put in the ground.
The Chinese government still uses Japan and the atrocities committed in the 1930s and 1940s as a bogeyman to distract from the atrocities committed by the Chinese government against it's own people in the 1940s and 1950s.
Which ISP also sells video? Everyone single one of them that is pushing for fast/slow lanes? Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, AT&T Uverse, Verizon FIOS, every single one. Even the ISPs that aren't pushing for fast lanes still sell video so that they can offer triple play service to compete. Often this is done by re-selling satellite TV as the video portion of the triple play.
Why would an ISP do that if they have the option to peer directly with Netflix?
When the ISP in question sells pay-per-view video as well, and also wants to choke down that IP traffic growth so they don't have to do as many network upgrades.
It's not intended to. It's only intended to get some politicians names in the news in conjunction with a popular issue. This is a toothless pointless bill.
Only if the video of them singing it is "exclusively licensed by independent record labels". This article is hugely overblown. This is targeting some specific labels, not everybody with a guitar and a phone.
The Tier concept is a silly one mis-applied by layer 3 guys to telecom. TWT owns fiber, has a large transport and IP network, and has large enterprise and wholesale accounts worth many millions of dollars per year. They aren't a pure re-seller, as you seem to believe.
Not much, its a wholesale/transit/large enterprise carrier buying a smaller wholesale/transit/large enterprise carrier. Both of these guys are going to come down on the side of being pro-neutral, because they don't have residential customers to exploit.
Moore's law is a terrible example as it's not based on any theory or math. It's more like "Moore's Observation that has held fairly true for a few decades".
This is right on point. Although I think upbringing is huge. People who were raised on garbage by their parents and think vegetables are gross and that food that isn't beige is weird will eat that way till they die prematurely.
I'm tempted to see just how cheaply I can eat for the next week or so. Red beans and rice, taco night (no ground beef and taco shells, grill a cheap cut of meat and put in steamed tortillas), crock pot chicken and broccoli soup. I can think of a lot of ways to eat for less than the dollar menu.
Slashdot Mirror
That's news to me. I don't see why Netflix would care where the residential customer is located. They can geolocate IP address regardless of the peering point to block international traffic as needed. I'm certainly transporting traffic a lot farther than across IL to get to peering points in Chicago, Atlanta or Dallas. If you check peeringdb.com, Netflix doesn't have a peering point closer to Southern IL that Chicago anyway. They don't look to be in St Louis or Davenport.
There are two main answers to the second question.
Cable ISPs are originally video providers, so they have a financial incentive to impair an online video service. FTTH services are also big into Triple Play so that's why Verizon and AT&T are being jerks. If you look at traditional DSL companies like Frontier, Windstream or Centurylink they are not rattling their sabers about how Netflix is 'using' their network. These companies only sell video by bundling Satellite with their service, and they only do that to compete with Cable on Triple Play. God knows they are having trouble in the copper last mile, but they're at least trying to do the right thing by their customers on the peering side.
Also, online video is the largest source of bandwidth usage, and Netflix is the largest source of online video. Impairing that traffic, causing your customers to drop down from HD to SD resolutions, reduces your network load and lets you slow down upgrades elsewhere on the network. Choke at the peering point where network is cheap, save money in the regional transport where it is expensive. It doesn't even require special traffic shaping routers. You know everything on those peering links is video, just stop upgrading them.
Hulu is a lobotomized alternative pushed by the television networks. They dont have enough money to squeeze or enough traffic to be a problem.
Amazon and Google generate tons of business traffic as well through cloud services and of course the search engine so impairing those ASes would piss off the most valuable customers the ISP has.
So that's why Netflix is singled out. Hulu and Vimeo and so forth are small potatoes, Amazon and Google are not to be #$%&ed with.
The problem is Netflix refuses to sign reciprocal peering agreements.
What? I work in the industry too, our network has multiple dedicated 10GE peering ports with Netflix in every major IXP where we have a presence.
Netflix is easy to work with on peering because it's very much in their interest not to use Level3, Cogent, or other transit providers at all.
The point about Netflix using transit providers that are relatively more expensive to the ISP on the other end may be valid, but is any ISP with more than a few thousand customers should be peering directly with Netflix anyway.
https://www.netflix.com/openco...
Netflix does have a CDN program. They will provide a caching appliance free of charge to ISPs which will immediately reduce the load on that ISPs network. The only reason not to participate is if the goal is not to provide service and reduce costs, but to artificially choke back Netflix to make the ISPs own video product more competitive. The Open Connect appliance is actually a pretty cool design.
https://www.netflix.com/openco...
Replying to my own comment here, but Content Delivery Networks aka Caching is also a win-win for everyone. It keeps IP traffic local and cuts down on the amount of bandwidth that has to leave the ISPs network and burn up transport bandwidth and possibly also increased transit costs. The customer gets faster service, the ISP gets reduced costs, the Content Provider has a better product. This is also something we need more of for the Internet to continue to grow.
I agree, this is really about the ISPs actually providing the product that they've sold and there's no need to get into what 'should' happen or what people 'deserve'.
I wouldn't put too much weight on the article author's description of how the Internet works. He gets some of the concepts right, but the implications wrong.
Peering is a win-win for absolutely everyone. It's not preferential treatment, it's a way for two networks to reduce both of their IP transit monthly bills. We don't need less peering, we need more peering. The only traffic that should be hitting paid transit for an ISP are packets heading for smaller networks and the other side of the globe, which are not within reach to peer with.
The US network is built on direct peering, it wouldn't work at all without it. We are slowly catching up to the EU where peering fabrics are more popular. This means that an ISP can use one port to peer with dozens or hundreds of other networks.
Peering doesn't disadvantage smaller ISPs and content providers, because it's still more affordable for them than buying transit.
They targeted both right and left wing groups critical of the adminstration? Oh well that changes everyfuckingthing. Thanks for pointing this out.
Is God confusion? That would explain a lot.
The lowest estimate on Wikipedia is 23 million. Most of them are closer to 40. That's pretty much the combined population of the two largest cities in China, Beijing and Shanghai, dead in the space of a few years.
I'm not saying they're not worse, I'm saying that being the victim of something doesn't make people less likely to do that to someone else. I'll bet you that right now as we speak there is a 1 legged guy somewhere in Africa setting a land-mine.
I was referring to the CCP. They may be tied with the KMT in terms of oppressive quality, but the CCP is the undisputed world leader in terms of quantity of people put in the ground.
The Chinese government still uses Japan and the atrocities committed in the 1930s and 1940s as a bogeyman to distract from the atrocities committed by the Chinese government against it's own people in the 1940s and 1950s.
A lot more people died from conventional bombs in WWII than nuclear ones, even in Japan, and we're all still building and dropping those.
Which ISP also sells video? Everyone single one of them that is pushing for fast/slow lanes? Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, AT&T Uverse, Verizon FIOS, every single one. Even the ISPs that aren't pushing for fast lanes still sell video so that they can offer triple play service to compete. Often this is done by re-selling satellite TV as the video portion of the triple play.
Why would an ISP do that if they have the option to peer directly with Netflix?
When the ISP in question sells pay-per-view video as well, and also wants to choke down that IP traffic growth so they don't have to do as many network upgrades.
It's not intended to. It's only intended to get some politicians names in the news in conjunction with a popular issue. This is a toothless pointless bill.
Only if the video of them singing it is "exclusively licensed by independent record labels". This article is hugely overblown. This is targeting some specific labels, not everybody with a guitar and a phone.
The Tier concept is a silly one mis-applied by layer 3 guys to telecom. TWT owns fiber, has a large transport and IP network, and has large enterprise and wholesale accounts worth many millions of dollars per year. They aren't a pure re-seller, as you seem to believe.
Not much, its a wholesale/transit/large enterprise carrier buying a smaller wholesale/transit/large enterprise carrier. Both of these guys are going to come down on the side of being pro-neutral, because they don't have residential customers to exploit.
it makes me wonder how many cases could be corrected with a minor capsaicin injection
Off hand I would guess zero cases.
If you want uncapped prices, you pay an uncapped bill.
Look at T-Mobile, Sprint, various MVNOs. If you want one of the Big Two you pay Big Prices.
Moore's law is a terrible example as it's not based on any theory or math. It's more like "Moore's Observation that has held fairly true for a few decades".
This is right on point. Although I think upbringing is huge. People who were raised on garbage by their parents and think vegetables are gross and that food that isn't beige is weird will eat that way till they die prematurely.
I'm tempted to see just how cheaply I can eat for the next week or so. Red beans and rice, taco night (no ground beef and taco shells, grill a cheap cut of meat and put in steamed tortillas), crock pot chicken and broccoli soup. I can think of a lot of ways to eat for less than the dollar menu.
Bananas aren't propogated by seeds.
Well, color me impressed. Well done Minnesota.