Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown

[Parmenides]

But wait, just last week they were swearing up and down that they don't throttle!

I pay for a 50Mb connection and all the planets have to be in line for me to get a damn hd stream.

With the purchase of TWC, Comcast and the others need to be regulated period. I don't care about your political views but we can all agree we cant live in a country with just one isp. Where will this end?

I'm a "less regulation is usually better" type guy. But as long as these guys with huge lobby budgets enjoy regional monopolies, I say regulate them to the stone age!

 

[dandirk]

The one question no on seemed to answer in detail is why Comcast refused to use NetFlix's OpenConnect offer.. to provide servers on their network to locally host some content.]

The only reasons I can think of are:

1. Netflix wanted full access to the server
2. Netflix would not allow or could not meet Comcast server standards (aka brandx anti-virus, or IP accesss to bios/KVM/management etc.
3. Open Connect is not nearly what we think it is, maybe it fails to rectify the issue.


My opinion is if Netflix and their bandwidth providers are providing enough bandwidth to Comcast for proper service and Comcast is the one failing to upgrade the ability to receive the content it is all on Comcast.

If not then its netflix or their partners... should be that easy but I know the system was built when there wasn't such a large disparity of receiving data vs sending data...

There may come a day where the streaming data alone could possibly cost 50% or more of your bill... If you didn't stream would you want to pay 50% more for something you don't use?

The tiered pricing and access would be needed, net neutrality or not.

 

[WaltC]

I disagree with this statement - having worked at Comcast myself in the engineering dept, I know what it takes to get the "bandwidth" you think should be fair and equal to everyone. Well, it's not. You have core routers that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars by themselves, and then you have to buy the modules separately; the individual 10Gb/100Gb fiber modules cost thousands by themselves. Then you have the multi-million dollar termination equipment (the big CMTS') that your cable modem talks to, so it can access the internet.

Now, compound that with the non-core equipment that gets upgraded EVERY NIGHT. Plus they were also working on replacing the Cisco 7200s with new Cisco ASRs, Literally non-stop upgrades throughout the whole network to increase capacity, every night. Then you have to pay the network engineers working on this stuff every night, and the field engineers swapping the equipment. There's thousands of routers, tens of thousands of modules, new fiber runs, new equipment. This shit adds up really really fast.

What your fee covers is access into the network. Peering agreements with other customers are for a specific share of the bandwidth. You think Cogent has unlimited bandwidth? This is why Netflix is now peering directly with Comcast.

Now I don't think certain services should be throttled at all, that's not my point. But this is not double dipping, and no your fee does not cover unlimited bandwidth to every server in the internet. If Netflix is using up more BW than they have available, well then they need pay to receive a bigger share of the pipe.

Gee, your post makes me even happier I just got in bed with Cogent as my back-end ISP, through a local ISP other than Comcast or AT&T--who at the moment are the dominant ISPs in my neck of the woods. We've got fiber not only to the building, but in the building itself, and we link to it via Ethernet (Ewan), and on a busy day I'm getting a clean 50Mb/ps down & up: 80-90mb/ps d&u when my local building traffic is mostly asleep. OK & and I get digital unlimited phone with all the bells and whistles. And on top of that I get ~250 channels of digital TV, of which half are HD and all are (even the non-HD channels) no less than *720P* in resolution (there is no 480P.)

The clincher is (get ready for this) I'm getting all three services for $10 more per month than Comcast was charging me for a single 6Mb/s down cable connection--no phone and no TV! If you do it the right way, it doesn't have to cost a bloody fortune to give somebody screaming Internet access--but if you do it the wrong way, like Comcast and AT&T insist on doing it, you'll be using old, worn out infrastructure to deliver your services because you don't want to spend the money upgrading to straight fiber-to-the-mail-box, etc.

Hell, AT&T would like nothing better than to drop land-line service altogether and go strictly into wireless, because that's where the suckers and the money are... Instead of buying Time Warner, Comcast should have taken the money and brought everyone up to *at least* 25-50 Mb/s for the current 6Mb/s pricing. But why should they if people keep saying "6Mb/s down is fine!"...?

BTW, apparently something you haven't thought about: it is services like Netflix that make people interested in buying a Comcast Internet account, isn't it? If not for Netflix and other businesses and web sites that attract Internet users, Comcast would be selling far less Internet subscriptions, wouldn't it?

 

[dandirk]

I'm a "less regulation is usually better" type guy. But as long as these guys with huge lobby budgets enjoy regional monopolies, I say regulate them to the stone age!

Thats my opinion too...

If they are benefiting from laws limiting their competition, there there has to be regulation like other similar providers have like electricity.

Look at markets where google and Verizon FIOS originally entered... prices either dropped AND/OR services was improved.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I disagree with this statement - having worked at Comcast myself in the engineering dept, I know what it takes to get the "bandwidth" you think should be fair and equal to everyone. Well, it's not. You have core routers that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars by themselves, and then you have to buy the modules separately; the individual 10Gb/100Gb fiber modules cost thousands by themselves. Then you have the multi-million dollar termination equipment (the big CMTS') that your cable modem talks to, so it can access the internet.

Now, compound that with the non-core equipment that gets upgraded EVERY NIGHT. Plus they were also working on replacing the Cisco 7200s with new Cisco ASRs, Literally non-stop upgrades throughout the whole network to increase capacity, every night. Then you have to pay the network engineers working on this stuff every night, and the field engineers swapping the equipment. There's thousands of routers, tens of thousands of modules, new fiber runs, new equipment. This shit adds up really really fast.

What your fee covers is access into the network. Peering agreements with other customers are for a specific share of the bandwidth. You think Cogent has unlimited bandwidth? This is why Netflix is now peering directly with Comcast.

Now I don't think certain services should be throttled at all, that's not my point. But this is not double dipping, and no your fee does not cover unlimited bandwidth to every server in the internet. If Netflix is using up more BW than they have available, well then they need pay to receive a bigger share of the pipe.

Then how come customers of ISP's in other countries don't have these peering problems, and at the same time pay less and get more bandwidth?

Something here simply does not compute.

 

[NoOther]

Then how come customers of ISP's in other countries don't have these peering problems, and at the same time pay less and get more bandwidth?

Something here simply does not compute.

First off, many other countries do have these "peering problems". But many other countries also have very different infrastructures and setups. You can't really compare one country with another when talking about these issues. You can compare which system you believe is better, but not can't really compare specific things to one system that do not exist the same way in another system.

What does not compute is you just don't understand how the systems work.

 

[fairlane]

You know, crap like this is going to eventually force Netflix to raise their rates. And why does Comcast need more money from Netflix anyway? Aren't they collecting a ton of money from subscribers?

Because running an ISP isn't cheap. The only sustainable business model is metering, which ISP's already do. Netflix and other CDN who want better quality service would benefit from directly connecting and integrating into an ISP's pipes - why would the ISP allow it for free? I don't see your cable bill going up either, only your Netflix bill, as it should. Netflix traffic comprises over 34% of ALL Internet traffic. ISP's infrastructure can't keep up (and they should also upgrade but that costs even more money). I believe the ISP's were in fact throttling the stream but no one will ever be able to prove it - not without ISP's providing more raw data, and I highly doubt they would implicate themselves.

Transit peering happens all the time and it's insane what tactics both sides use to up the other - I'm not even sure a solid Net Neutrality clause would prevent them from doing it. The fact that they play these games taken out of the known 'Peering Playbook' just means us the consumers are stuck in the middle because both sides have come to an impasse.
That's why Verizon and Netflix are still feuding. Comcast probably didn't want to continue even though Netflix is in direct competition to both Comcast and Verizon's products (Xfinity and Redbox/On-Demand).

http://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Service-Providers-And-Peering.html

http://arstechnica.com/information-...n-or-comcast-a-vpn-might-speed-up-that-video/

 

[Ducman69]

Need net neutrality laws ASAP!

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Thats my opinion too...

If they are benefiting from laws limiting their competition, there there has to be regulation like other similar providers have like electricity.

Look at markets where google and Verizon FIOS originally entered... prices either dropped AND/OR services was improved.

Couldn't agree more.

The free market model relies on there being competition in order to drive efficiencies. As soon as there is no competition, the whole system falls apart and we wind up with the garbage for internet service we have today, and then something has to be done from a legal perspective.

 

[WaltC]

Thats my opinion too...

If they are benefiting from laws limiting their competition, there there has to be regulation like other similar providers have like electricity.

Look at markets where google and Verizon FIOS originally entered... prices either dropped AND/OR services was improved.

The government is already too much of the problem--the government not only recognizes the ad-hoc "monopolies" of the major companies, it also throws a lot of money their way. Besides, "monopolies" is incorrect--when AT&T & Comcast carve up a territory and divide it between themselves, they aren't "monopolies." Instead, what they are is an illegal trust of companies conspiring together to fix market prices and conditions--that's what we have--illegal trusts of companies in various territories across the country. Yep, the very thing that anti-trust law was designed to halt. Who gives 'em a pass? Dear ol' Uncle Sam, that's who. The government is the only party that can give 'em a pass.

What we need is more competition, and to that end, if the government wants to throw money (which is all it can do except levy taxes), let it throw it at companies trying to compete with the big shots. What happens is you wind up with situations like mine, as I detailed in the above post.

 

[SLee]

Then how come customers of ISP's in other countries don't have these peering problems, and at the same time pay less and get more bandwidth?

They do, French telecoms had a peering dispute relating to traffic from Youtube in late 2012 early 2013.

Plus many countries may only have a few Tier 1 providers, meaning fewer settlement-free peer agreements to dispute about.

 

[Liger88]

Sad day. Even more surprising is the PR Forums on DSLReports are jumping in glee as if this is some great thing for Comcast subscribers. How quickly people forget the rumors Comcast was holding Netflix data hostage and how do you think Netflix is going to recoup those loses?

Now Verizon and Netflix are in talk about doing the same thing. What a hustle. Congrats to the investors you win.

 

[fairlane]

Then how come customers of ISP's in other countries don't have these peering problems, and at the same time pay less and get more bandwidth?

Something here simply does not compute.

References? TBH I'm not concerned about how things are run in other countries, only here. That said, your point is taken if in fact something is amiss, perpetrated by the ISP's which is what the FCC (as useless as they may be) is charged with monitoring...

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

The government is already too much of the problem--the government not only recognizes the ad-hoc "monopolies" of the major companies, it also throws a lot of money their way. Besides, "monopolies" is incorrect--when AT&T & Comcast carve up a territory and divide it between themselves, they aren't "monopolies." Instead, what they are is an illegal trust of companies conspiring together to fix market prices and conditions--that's what we have--illegal trusts of companies in various territories across the country. Yep, the very thing that anti-trust law was designed to halt. Who gives 'em a pass? Dear ol' Uncle Sam, that's who. The government is the only party that can give 'em a pass.

What we need is more competition, and to that end, if the government wants to throw money (which is all it can do except levy taxes), let it throw it at companies trying to compete with the big shots. What happens is you wind up with situations like mine, as I detailed in the above post.

The way I see it is that the current internet structure is like if only private enterprise built roads, and they were all toll roads.

We need a single nationwide tier 1 network like the interstate system, funded by the federal government at first (but self sufficient later) and run by an independent not for profit organization or federal agency.

This system would bring backbone access to every city and town in America, allowing small, independent ISP's to pay for access to the backbone and sell last mile service to
consumers and businesses. It would be funded in its entirety by these service fees, and would bypass all currently existing tier1's and their pesky peering agreements, and essentially shut the big guys down, and open up every market in america to real competition.

 

[Thuleman]

This is the end of net-neutrality. We live in a society where precedent matters and Netflix just screwed all of us by paying up.

Just as well tough, streaming video was sucking up too much of my time anyway. If it becomes more expensive I'll stop paying and just do the things I was supposed to do instead.

 

[elation]

We have toll roads in most cities and states ... for good or bad this is no different ... you can stay on the frontage road and hit the speed bumps and traffic lights or you can pay to access the express lane ... since Comcast owns the lines to the house they are entitled to control how fast they want you to drive on their road

This is completely different. That's like saying a data collision and a vehicle collision are the same thing. Good Lord man.

This whole thing is a total crock of BS.

 

[fairlane]

I disagree with this statement - having worked at Comcast myself in the engineering dept, I know what it takes to get the "bandwidth" you think should be fair and equal to everyone. Well, it's not. You have core routers that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars by themselves, and then you have to buy the modules separately; the individual 10Gb/100Gb fiber modules cost thousands by themselves. Then you have the multi-million dollar termination equipment (the big CMTS') that your cable modem talks to, so it can access the internet.

Now, compound that with the non-core equipment that gets upgraded EVERY NIGHT. Plus they were also working on replacing the Cisco 7200s with new Cisco ASRs, Literally non-stop upgrades throughout the whole network to increase capacity, every night. Then you have to pay the network engineers working on this stuff every night, and the field engineers swapping the equipment. There's thousands of routers, tens of thousands of modules, new fiber runs, new equipment. This shit adds up really really fast.

What your fee covers is access into the network. Peering agreements with other customers are for a specific share of the bandwidth. You think Cogent has unlimited bandwidth? This is why Netflix is now peering directly with Comcast.

Now I don't think certain services should be throttled at all, that's not my point. But this is not double dipping, and no your fee does not cover unlimited bandwidth to every server in the internet. If Netflix is using up more BW than they have available, well then they need pay to receive a bigger share of the pipe.

I have to concur. Well said..The DrPeering Internet Service playbook website covers this as well but not as comprehensively as you just did. I do feel the same as Zarathustra that it does set a dangerous precedent but I think the FCC is not going to be able to do much.

 

[NoOther]

The one question no on seemed to answer in detail is why Comcast refused to use NetFlix's OpenConnect offer.. to provide servers on their network to locally host some content.]

The only reasons I can think of are:

1. Netflix wanted full access to the server
2. Netflix would not allow or could not meet Comcast server standards (aka brandx anti-virus, or IP accesss to bios/KVM/management etc.
3. Open Connect is not nearly what we think it is, maybe it fails to rectify the issue.


My opinion is if Netflix and their bandwidth providers are providing enough bandwidth to Comcast for proper service and Comcast is the one failing to upgrade the ability to receive the content it is all on Comcast.

If not then its netflix or their partners... should be that easy but I know the system was built when there wasn't such a large disparity of receiving data vs sending data...

There may come a day where the streaming data alone could possibly cost 50% or more of your bill... If you didn't stream would you want to pay 50% more for something you don't use?

The tiered pricing and access would be needed, net neutrality or not.

It hasn't been talked about because no one knows the details really. Netflix has shopped this idea around to multiple ISPs, not just Comcast. None of them that I have heard of, seem to have taken up the offer, even though Cogent keeps trying to say otherwise. We could discuss it ad nauseam and still probably not get it right. some of the bullets you have there are probably accurate, but I imagine its a combination of things.

Also since Cogent commented on this very thing, it seems like they would be involved in some way and would have some access or oversight to the equipment. I would imagine that is one of the biggest stumbling blocks. What network in their right mind would allow equipment from another network inside their domain with direct access to their routes? Add to that the convoluted contracts and negotiations they would have to go through with both Netflix and Cogent, it seems like a mess. Better to try and deal either with Cogent or Netflix directly than both together.

My opinion is if Netflix and their bandwidth providers are providing enough bandwidth to Comcast for proper service and Comcast is the one failing to upgrade the ability to receive the content it is all on Comcast.

The problem is the assumptions going on here. The assumption is that Cogent only has to provide enough bandwidth to get the data to the next network and then their obligation ends. But in reality, Cogent has an obligation to be able to deliver Netflix data (who they are charging to host their services) to the end customer. Currently they can't do this, they can only achieve this through peer networks. Because they are using far more of the peer networks than is being used of their network, it is an unequal yoke. Thus the purpose of transit agreements, where they basically lease bandwidth from the peer networks. This alleviates them the cost of having to lay down their own infrastructure to get that data to the end customer. The problem is, Cogent doesn't want to build the infrastructure or lease the bandwidth. So they are doing a disservice to Netflix while trying to deflect blame to other ISPs. Thus Netflix is now forced over all this backlash to try and deal directly with the other ISPs.

 

[SLee]

It would be funded in its entirety by these service fees, and would bypass all currently existing tier1's and their pesky peering agreements, and essentially shut the big guys down, and open up every market in america to real competition.

Maybe it will, but in the end it doesn't really matter for Netflix.

ISP users will still have to pay the backbone provider (through their monthly fees to the ISP) for getting data from Netflix, and Netflix will still have to pay the backbone provider for sending the data to the users.

 

[Team Obi Juan]

This is the end of net-neutrality. We live in a society where precedent matters and Netflix just screwed all of us by paying up.

Netflix, the world's largest subscription video-streaming service, joins companies such as Google Inc. and Facebook Inc. that already pay Comcast for content-delivery network access.

 

[WaltC]

The way I see it is that the current internet structure is like if only private enterprise built roads, and they were all toll roads.

We need a single nationwide tier 1 network like the interstate system, funded by the federal government at first (but self sufficient later) and run by an independent not for profit organization or federal agency.

This system would bring backbone access to every city and town in America, allowing small, independent ISP's to pay for access to the backbone and sell last mile service to
consumers and businesses. It would be funded in its entirety by these service fees, and would bypass all currently existing tier1's and their pesky peering agreements, and essentially shut the big guys down, and open up every market in america to real competition.

Try and centralize the Internet and suddenly not only does the Internet as we know it disappear, so does your privacy--assuming you know how to maintain your privacy on a public network like the Internet in the first place, that is...

What makes the Internet tick, and what makes it a global phenomenon that all of us enjoy, is its *decentralization.* For example--cut off my access in Arizona--I'll just go around Arizona to get it. A centralized Internet would go a long way toward ruining the Internet today as we all know it, imo... Government is far more often the problem, than the solution, in these matters of private commerce and private communication.

 

[NoOther]

Here is a great piece on this particular subject that will shed some light on the situation. It even sheds some light on some of my own comments that might not be entirely correct. Just follow the link.

 

[mdswish]

This is horse shit! Consumers (including myself) already pay Comcast for internet service and anything and everything that comes with it. Why the hell should Netflix pay Comcast a premium for something that we consumers are already paying for?? Comcast is double-dipping and it shouldn't be allowed!! This is going to set a precedent and other ISPs are going to expect the same thing from Netflix, which is going to mean that Netflix subscription rates are going (way?) up. Totally not fair at all. ISPs in the US already lag WAY behind most of the rest of the world when it comes to broadband deployment, speeds and monthly pricing. The FCC needs to step in here....FAST!

 

[Liger88]

This is the end of net-neutrality. We live in a society where precedent matters and Netflix just screwed all of us by paying up.

Just as well tough, streaming video was sucking up too much of my time anyway. If it becomes more expensive I'll stop paying and just do the things I was supposed to do instead.

Once data caps come back into FULL effect, and they will as Comcast is already testing new 300GB limits and 10GB limits w/$1 overcharges in select markets, then we're screwed.

Every ISP needs to mimic the scheme Comcast has going on. Screw double dipping, they're doing triple dipping.

1) Charge customers an insanely high price compared to other first world nations for slower Internet. Check

2) Cap their bandwidth (usage limits) and charge them 10-20x the cost per GB we pay to backbone providers, or force them to upgrade there Internet to an even more ridiculously priced Tier with higher limits. Check

3) Force big websites that our users visit to pay us for the privilege of sending and receiving data through out networks. Check, Check, and CHECK

 

[Sufu]

Gee, your post makes me even happier I just got in bed with Cogent as my back-end ISP, through a local ISP other than Comcast or AT&T--who at the moment are the dominant ISPs in my neck of the woods. We've got fiber not only to the building, but in the building itself, and we link to it via Ethernet (Ewan), and on a busy day I'm getting a clean 50Mb/ps down & up: 80-90mb/ps d&u when my local building traffic is mostly asleep. OK & and I get digital unlimited phone with all the bells and whistles. And on top of that I get ~250 channels of digital TV, of which half are HD and all are (even the non-HD channels) no less than *720P* in resolution (there is no 480P.)

Good for you. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the BW for Netlifx. If your ISP has decent equipment and does not have a lot of subscribers in that one particular node, you could get great speeds. Or maybe not. Thanks for pointing out HD though, because I forgot to mention that HDTV you get at home, goes through the same fiber links on the Comcast network. It's not just interwebs traffic. All TV is IPTV on the Comcast Network, it's just modulated to RF when it leaves the DEMARC.

Either way, whatever speeds you get is what you pay for on a shared line. It's going to be the same thing for Netflix and Cogent. That's like you complaining to your ISP that the internet is slow when you are using up all of your available BW on *nix ISO torrents.

The clincher is (get ready for this) I'm getting all three services for $10 more per month than Comcast was charging me for a single 6Mb/s down cable connection--no phone and no TV! If you do it the right way, it doesn't have to cost a bloody fortune to give somebody screaming Internet access--but if you do it the wrong way, like Comcast and AT&T insist on doing it, you'll be using old, worn out infrastructure to deliver your services because you don't want to spend the money upgrading to straight fiber-to-the-mail-box, etc.

Hell, AT&T would like nothing better than to drop land-line service altogether and go strictly into wireless, because that's where the suckers and the money are... Instead of buying Time Warner, Comcast should have taken the money and brought everyone up to *at least* 25-50 Mb/s for the current 6Mb/s pricing. But why should they if people keep saying "6Mb/s down is fine!"...?

Slow internet sucks, but again no one is denying this fact. My whole point is that Netflix should have to pay for the bandwidth they use, like every other company out there.

BTW, apparently something you haven't thought about: it is services like Netflix that make people interested in buying a Comcast Internet account, isn't it? If not for Netflix and other businesses and web sites that attract Internet users, Comcast would be selling far less Internet subscriptions, wouldn't it?

Maybe. But I think the internet was doing fine before Netflix was around. We could argue the same thing for Youtube, yet you never hear Youtube complaining that they have to pay for BW.

Then how come customers of ISP's in other countries don't have these peering problems, and at the same time pay less and get more bandwidth?

Something here simply does not compute.

ISPs at other countries already have a large fiber infrastructure in place. Other countries are smaller and as such it's easier to build out the new infrastructure as well (e.g. South Korea, Japan). You could go to the other end of the extreme and say U.K. has none of these issues (honestly I don't know), but has nothing to do with the peering traffic we are talking about here.


My whole point is that it doesn't matter what you are paying for the service, as it does not equate unlimited bandwidth for every service out there. Youtube pays as much for BW as Hulu, and so should Netflix. Bandwidth costs money, it's not just "there" - otherwise [H] would not need to worry about how much bandwidth it's servers are allocated, because all users would be able to access it equally regardless of the load placed on the server.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Here is a great piece on this particular subject that will shed some light on the situation. It even sheds some light on some of my own comments that might not be entirely correct. Just follow the link.

At the same time as yes - it is not fair or correct to mix up traditional Net Neutrality rules with peering agreements, it is also not completely far to completely insulate the two.

Net Neutrality is intended to avoid intentional filtering of traffic slowing it down to some services and not others. We all know how this can be a bad thing, and why Net Neutrality of some sort is needed.

The problem with peering agreements is that many of the same issues exist here, and some sort of regulated solution is thus also required.

If a tier1 network is interested in filtering traffic to suit their needs, you can be damned sure they are also interested in setting up and manipulating network peering solutions to hurt their competitors and benefit themselves. it's a different way and place of accomplishing the same shady goals.

Personally I would prefer if we got rid of peering all together, with the cost of reaching anywhere on the next covered by subscribers on one end, and by service agreements between companies and major networks on the other. (in this scenario cogent pays to manage their network including all peering points out of the income they get from Netflix, and Verizon/Comcast pays for managing their network, including all peering points from the subscription fees they get from their customers.

In this model, when traffic needs go up, Cogent owes it to Netflix to up their number of peering connections to their respective tier1's in order to fulfil their agreement with Netflix, just like verizon/comcast owes it to their customers to increase their number of peering connections if their customers are not getting satisfactory results over th epeering border between the two.

This may not be politically possible to push through at this point, but at the very least, Net Neutrality should be updated such that it includes some peering considerations, like - for instance - making it illegal for peering agreements to be designed in order to affect one service or another. Enforce them such that they must offer the same terms and prices to all peers, and they can't pick and choose winning peers and losing peers.

 

[NoOther]

At the same time as yes - it is not fair or correct to mix up traditional Net Neutrality rules with peering agreements, it is also not completely far to completely insulate the two.

Net Neutrality is intended to avoid intentional filtering of traffic slowing it down to some services and not others. We all know how this can be a bad thing, and why Net Neutrality of some sort is needed.

The problem with peering agreements is that many of the same issues exist here, and some sort of regulated solution is thus also required.

If a tier1 network is interested in filtering traffic to suit their needs, you can be damned sure they are also interested in setting up and manipulating network peering solutions to hurt their competitors and benefit themselves. it's a different way and place of accomplishing the same shady goals.

Personally I would prefer if we got rid of peering all together, with the cost of reaching anywhere on the next covered by subscribers on one end, and by service agreements between companies and major networks on the other. (in this scenario cogent pays to manage their network including all peering points out of the income they get from Netflix, and Verizon/Comcast pays for managing their network, including all peering points from the subscription fees they get from their customers.

In this model, when traffic needs go up, Cogent owes it to Netflix to up their number of peering connections to their respective tier1's in order to fulfil their agreement with Netflix, just like verizon/comcast owes it to their customers to increase their number of peering connections if their customers are not getting satisfactory results over th epeering border between the two.

This may not be politically possible to push through at this point, but at the very least, Net Neutrality should be updated such that it includes some peering considerations, like - for instance - making it illegal for peering agreements to be designed in order to affect one service or another. Enforce them such that they must offer the same terms and prices to all peers, and they can't pick and choose winning peers and losing peers.

You didn't even go and read the link did you?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

You didn't even go and read the link did you?

Yes, I read it. There is a difference between understanding the status quo, and suggesting how things instead ought to be.

 

[Sturmangriff]

This pretty much sums up my feelings on this if stuff like this starts to snowball...

 

[NoOther]

Yes, I read it. There is a difference between understanding the status quo, and suggesting how things instead ought to be.

What you wrote had almost nothing to do with the link though. In the link it specifically stated that the Comcast Netflix deal has almost nothing to do with peering agreements. In fact it very clearly stated that this deal is better all around for everyone involved by including Comcast in Netflix's own CDN cutting out any middle man.

Also the way he explains Netflix is doing their delivery with their own CDN is exactly the way it is also done in most other countries, including the ones you seem so keen on.

 

[CharonPDX]

This specific deal doesn't sound too bad.

This isn't "Netflix paying Comcast to be treated better, with zero infrastructure changes" - this is "Netflix is paying Comcast to co-locate servers and peer directly with Comcast's network, rather than having to go through third-party backbone providers." In all likelihood, this will probably save Netflix money, by not sending traffic through "dollar per byte" backbone providers like Level3.

Google does something similar with YouTube.

Now, if Comcast were to specifically throttle Netflix unless they did this (there are rumors that they were doing this,) then it would be bad. If proof that Comcast was doing that were to come to light, then I will definitely denounce this. But if it was truly "Netflix paying for direct peering," this is just standard operations.

 

[kac77]

But if it was truly "Netflix paying for direct peering," this is just standard operations.

There's nothing standard about it. And now it's Verizon's turn.

Verizon CEO Says He Expects Netflix To Pay Him, Too

 

[NoOther]

There's nothing standard about it. And now it's Verizon's turn.

Verizon CEO Says He Expects Netflix To Pay Him, Too

Read the link I provided, there is everything standard about it.

 

[Bling]

Why netflix why? Now everyone else is gunna hold out there hands too.

 

[Borgschulze]

I hope one day shitty Netflix isn't clogging up the internet for everyone else.

But really, I'd like to know what "Capacity" most ISPs actually run at during peak time. I bet it's around 50%, and they're milking the shit out of our wallets on top of the "Bandwidth Cap"

 

[kbrickley]

There's nothing standard about it. And now it's Verizon's turn.

Verizon CEO Says He Expects Netflix To Pay Him, Too

Actually it sounds like exactly the same standard deal as the other ... Netflix currently takes a path to Verizon and Comcast through other third party managed servers and backbones on the Internet ... these deals allow for Netflix to establish a direct connection to the Networks of Comcast and Verizon (something that benefits all three companies) but will likely hurt the backbone and third party elements who are being bypassed ... the only impact Net neutrality would have on this would be if it indicated that deals like this are not allowed since all companies can't afford them or they would negatively impact the third parties bypassed ... personally I think these direct connection deals are good and I would like to see more of them ... they appear more the equivalent of an Amazon regional or State warehouse for faster customer service than a pay to avoid throttling

 

[Methadras]

And now you know why Net Neutrality was vital. This is where shit will start. Amazon will be next. Apple will be next and so on.

 

[kbrickley]

And now you know why Net Neutrality was vital. This is where shit will start. Amazon will be next. Apple will be next and so on.

I don't see how this is a Net Neutrality issue unless you are saying that companies establishing direct connections between each other should not be legal ... that is like saying Amazon shouldn't be permitted to build in State warehouses since that would provide unfair competition with the local companies ... that is all this deal is about ... directly linking Netflix into the Comcast infrastructure (which provides improved speed and performance) but also requires special infrastructure and servers to maintain this link (hence the fees) ... seems perfectly legit to me

 

[NoOther]

And now you know why Net Neutrality was vital. This is where shit will start. Amazon will be next. Apple will be next and so on.

Trolling? This isn't a net neutrality issue and never has been.

 

[Thuleman]

Once data caps come back into FULL effect, and they will as Comcast is already testing new 300GB limits and 10GB limits w/$1 overcharges in select markets, then we're screwed.

I think that the "we" you are talking about is the minority "we". Most customers have data caps on their boardband. My cap is 200 GB/month, and even with fairly heavy Netflix, Amazon, Hulu+ usage we get to like 150-160 GB most months.

Unlimited data doesn't work, someone has to pay for it.