Time Warner Cable Also Charging Netflix For Direct Connection

[WaltC]

This is Netflix's fault for giving in to Comcast.

Don't stand up to one bully? Don't be surprised when the rest see you as Free Lunch Money

Why do you think Netflix didn't "stand up" to Comcast, et al? I'm certain you don't really think it's because somebody was "bullying" Netflix like a schoolboy on lunch-period recess... Anyway, that is certainly not it.

Netflix is a business & the ISPs are businesses. Netflix tried to get as many free direct connections to its network as it could manage--SuperHD is of no direct financial benefit to ISPs but it is to Netflix, of course. Several ISPs did in fact hop on the bandwagon, though, and when Netflix estimated it had done as well with that particular PR campaign as it could it started paying the mega-ISPs who balked to put in the extra hardware that would serve Netflix' customers best. Be thankful that Netflix is so sensible on the matter. I am.

It's pretty simple: Netflix is a for-profit commercial venture just like the ISPs. Isn't it obvious that Netflix needs the ISPs far more than the ISPs need Netflix? Think about the reality of that situation and it's pretty easy to figure out why Netflix stepped up to the plate for its customers. ISPs have a very broad business that serves far more interests than merely people who want to watch Netflix movies in Ultra or SuperHD... OTOH, those people are the only customers Netflix has...and if Netflix hadn't stepped up like this it would have simply opened the door for an enterprising competitor to do it. Once Netflix rang the "Open/Direct Netflix bell" is could not *unring it*, you know.

Anyway...my ISP provides me with a lot of bandwidth and I've had SuperHD content for several months--my ISP went ahead and jumped on board and my ISP is not Comcast, TW, or Verizon (thank goodness on all three points.) If Netflix wants to firmly cement its market position for movie streaming it had to pay the money to provide the kind of services for its customers that it so publicly has offered.

Basically, if you are an ISP with 2500 customers it is one thing to set up a direct connection with the Netflix network. If you are an ISP with 20,000,000 customers, it is quite another...

I love Netflix but here's the way I see it: SuperHD is something everyone should enjoy--it should be the only standard available, ideally. By omitting any mention of SuperHD ISPs, however, in its monthly bandwidth charts (where is Cogent?), Netflix seriously hurt its PR campaign to try and force the ISPs to pay for hardware roll-outs to Netflix customers. There are many ISPs that Netflix does business with that supply > 15Mb/s down (what Netflix says is required for SuperHD)--the company erred grievously in not mentioning these ISPs in its PR campaign. They pretty much blew their credibility with me at that point because I couldn't conceive of why Netflix didn't want to discuss its OpenConnect customers and SuperHD and give those ISPs proper credit. I still don't understand that, but anyway I am glad that Netflix is stepping up to the plate for its customers. It's about time, imo.

 

[Dawill]

This whole peering dispute nonsense needs to stop.

I pay my ISP for internet access. That includes ALL of the internet, not just subsections of it. It is their responsibility to provide access, and peering based on my service fee, and my service fee alone. Charging other networks for peering to reach me is unethical double dipping, and must stop.

FCC: Reclassify the Internet as a Common Carrier NOW!

Meanwhile, Netflix aren't sitting on their asses on this.

Rumor has it they are looking into going peer to peer to partially address this situation, as it ought to significantly reduce the load across the peering boundaries.

F that... Now netflix can lag out the rest of my internet traffic because I have to "seed" other viewers. No thanks. If they went that route, they would have to make it an option or possibly a cheaper account. They might as well just pay the isps then.

 

[Yakk]

If support a peer to peer system which would reduce my Netflix cost proportionally. Yes we would be talking nickels and dimes probably, but since I prioritize my traffic anyway it wouldn't affect my gaming using spare bandwidth.

 

[raz-0]

WTF?

Starting a real ISP isn't all that possible in the US. It's not even easy for an established ISP to move into a new area. For example: 10 years ago or so Verizon was all set to move FIOS into our city. They said they were about to do it. They had kiosks in the mall where you could sign up for it. Then, for some mysterious reason, it never happened. Comcast is the evil overlord here. They bought the (not too bright, I know her personally) mayor. Quite literally. Cash changed hands and FIOS never came.

Verizon didn't want the business. They were just making pretend while they collected subsidies for a service they didn't really want to roll out most places.

 

[Jagger100]

Why do you think Netflix didn't "stand up" to Comcast, et al? I'm certain you don't really think it's because somebody was "bullying" Netflix like a schoolboy on lunch-period recess... Anyway, that is certainly not it.

Netflix is a business & the ISPs are businesses. Netflix tried to get as many free direct connections to its network as it could manage--SuperHD is of no direct financial benefit to ISPs but it is to Netflix, of course. Several ISPs did in fact hop on the bandwagon, though, and when Netflix estimated it had done as well with that particular PR campaign as it could it started paying the mega-ISPs who balked to put in the extra hardware that would serve Netflix' customers best. Be thankful that Netflix is so sensible on the matter. I am.

It's pretty simple: Netflix is a for-profit commercial venture just like the ISPs. Isn't it obvious that Netflix needs the ISPs far more than the ISPs need Netflix? Think about the reality of that situation and it's pretty easy to figure out why Netflix stepped up to the plate for its customers. ISPs have a very broad business that serves far more interests than merely people who want to watch Netflix movies in Ultra or SuperHD... OTOH, those people are the only customers Netflix has...and if Netflix hadn't stepped up like this it would have simply opened the door for an enterprising competitor to do it. Once Netflix rang the "Open/Direct Netflix bell" is could not *unring it*, you know.

Anyway...my ISP provides me with a lot of bandwidth and I've had SuperHD content for several months--my ISP went ahead and jumped on board and my ISP is not Comcast, TW, or Verizon (thank goodness on all three points.) If Netflix wants to firmly cement its market position for movie streaming it had to pay the money to provide the kind of services for its customers that it so publicly has offered.

Basically, if you are an ISP with 2500 customers it is one thing to set up a direct connection with the Netflix network. If you are an ISP with 20,000,000 customers, it is quite another...

I love Netflix but here's the way I see it: SuperHD is something everyone should enjoy--it should be the only standard available, ideally. By omitting any mention of SuperHD ISPs, however, in its monthly bandwidth charts (where is Cogent?), Netflix seriously hurt its PR campaign to try and force the ISPs to pay for hardware roll-outs to Netflix customers. There are many ISPs that Netflix does business with that supply > 15Mb/s down (what Netflix says is required for SuperHD)--the company erred grievously in not mentioning these ISPs in its PR campaign. They pretty much blew their credibility with me at that point because I couldn't conceive of why Netflix didn't want to discuss its OpenConnect customers and SuperHD and give those ISPs proper credit. I still don't understand that, but anyway I am glad that Netflix is stepping up to the plate for its customers. It's about time, imo.

Sorry Netflix isn't forcing that data on Comcast or TWC, TWC & Comcast customers are pulling that data. The Cable Companies are intentionally singling out Netflix for a bad connection to make it appear to be Netflix fault for bad service.

Wondering why so many tools all of a sudden? Wallstreet pro-monopoly disguised as 'successful business' propaganda by the usual Wallstreet water carriers? Or something more direct?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

F that... Now netflix can lag out the rest of my internet traffic because I have to "seed" other viewers. No thanks. If they went that route, they would have to make it an option or possibly a cheaper account. They might as well just pay the isps then.

Meh.

Most people barely even use their upstream bandwidth, so I doubt they'll even notice.

For the rest, if they are willing to use their upstream bandwidth for torrents, I'm sure they'll learn to live with it.

It will suck for those with bandwidth caps, but honestly, it already sucks for them, so what difference does making it just a little bit worse make?

 

[Zepher]

Does Google have to pay the ISP's a fee for the bandwidth that YouTube uses?
I probably watch 10 times more content on Youtube than on Netflix in a given month, since there are youtube videos posted on facebook and other sites that I frequent.

 

[/usr/sbin]

This whole peering dispute nonsense needs to stop.

I pay my ISP for internet access. That includes ALL of the internet, not just subsections of it. It is their responsibility to provide access, and peering based on my service fee, and my service fee alone. Charging other networks for peering to reach me is unethical double dipping, and must stop.

FCC: Reclassify the Internet as a Common Carrier NOW!

^THIS x 1000

I pay my ISP to deliver the Internet to my door. Quite frankly I don't give a fuck about all of the deals on that back end. That's precisely why I pay them, so I DON'T have to worry or deal with it. If I ordered catering from a restaurant I don't want to hear some fucking sob story about your distributor... blah-blah-blah, if I paid you for the food at the price you asked, it's up to you to make that shit happen.

 

[SLee]

Sorry Netflix isn't forcing that data on Comcast or TWC, TWC & Comcast customers are pulling that data. The Cable Companies are intentionally singling out Netflix for a bad connection to make it appear to be Netflix fault for bad service.

But it's also up to Netflix to pick a suitable path to its customers. If Netflix is using a transit provider who, as an example, has an agreement with an ISP for 40 Gbps of bandwidth both ways, but then tries to send 60 Gbps using the transit provider, you could say the ISP should upgrade its connection, but then the ISP can say that the transit provider shouldn't be selling the extra 20 Gbps it doesn't have and that Netflix should make sure its transit providers have adequate guaranteed bandwidth in the first place.

In the end, seeing as how Netflix made direct connection agreements, it's probably because it's the cheapest option, or at the very least, has the best combination of performance and cost.

Wondering why so many tools all of a sudden? Wallstreet pro-monopoly disguised as 'successful business' propaganda by the usual Wallstreet water carriers? Or something more direct?

WaltC is a pretty (in)famous poster across several major forums who's known for wholeheartedly supporting AMD versus Intel and disliking Apple. I doubt he's a shill.

 

[SLee]

Does Google have to pay the ISP's a fee for the bandwidth that YouTube uses?
I probably watch 10 times more content on Youtube than on Netflix in a given month, since there are youtube videos posted on facebook and other sites that I frequent.

Yes, it's pretty much standard practice:

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...have-direct-interconnect-deals-with-isps.html

If you want to stop this practice, then the only possible solution would be to nationalize the US Internet backbone into a public utility with pre-set pricing that anybody can access.

 

[SLee]

It's established that VPN's work great for getting around throttling done by the ISPs, especially for Netflix. Some people are in work or college which will almost always throttle anyway. I say offer a bundle deal with NetFlix+VPN. Yea it would be off loading the cost onto you but you would get a VPN, and that can provide secure web browsing as well as faster video streaming.

VPNs work because they don't use the same transit provider as Netflix; ISPs are not throttling Netflix. Netflix's transit providers' connections into an ISP are congested, affecting all traffic that's being carried by that transit provider.

 

[GearChoices]

As is the case with most situations involving big business and essential services/products (like the internet), the only viable solution involves direct federal government intervention. And unfortunately big business owns them (due to the American people electing the paid-for candidates), so either nothing substantial will be done, or something actually bad will be done.

 

[Ashbringer]

Exactly; I guarantee a CCIE could set up routing tables to including these VPN's as they pop up. It would take some learning time, but the ISP's would eventually get most of the VPN portals. VPN is not the definitive way for Netflix to go right now. It works for pure VPN companies b/c it's harder for ISP's to monitor all the different VPN addresses.

Throttling VPN's is exactly what we want. If ISPs resort to that then net neutrality becomes a corporate issue. If you're using a company laptop then chances are it uses a VPN. That's going to disrupt a lot. ISP's won't win, because VPN traffic is private.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

But it's also up to Netflix to pick a suitable path to its customers. If Netflix is using a transit provider who, as an example, has an agreement with an ISP for 40 Gbps of bandwidth both ways, but then tries to send 60 Gbps using the transit provider, you could say the ISP should upgrade its connection, but then the ISP can say that the transit provider shouldn't be selling the extra 20 Gbps it doesn't have and that Netflix should make sure its transit providers have adequate guaranteed bandwidth in the first place.

Disagree.

There are two sides to every peering connection.

Let's use the example of Cogent and Verizon.

Netflix pays cogent for service. I pay Verizon for Service.

The peering point is shared, requiring hardware from both sides.

Nothing traverses the border of the peer without both parties being involved. Netflix for sending it, and the client for requesting it.

Cogent is responsible to provide hardware and connections up to the peering point, per its agreement to provide Netflix with service.

Verizon is responsible for providing hardware and connections up to the peering point per its agreement to provide me with service.

It shouldn't matter the slightest how much traffic passes the peering point an din which direction that traffic goes, as it takes two to tango. The traffic is going from a verizon customer to a cogent customer or from a cogent customer to a verizon customer. Traffic doesn't belong to any one company or client. It goes from one to the other and as such belongs to both sides.

Any agreement where my ISP tries to charge another network for peering is very much unethical, and double dipping, as I have already paid for service to the entire internet, and as part of that payment they owe it to me. if I don't get good service across the peer to Cogents network, I blame Verizon. if Netflix doesn't get satisfactory bandwidth across the peer to Verizons network, they should blame Cogent

I mean for crying out loud, the very definition of a peering agreement is that it is done for mutual benefit without financial compensation by either side...

Lets strip this down to what it really is for a moment shall we.

Peering agreements - in this case - are really just an excuse. The Netflix problem has nothing to do with peering agreements.

In a truly competitive market, ISP's would be HAPPY to be peering with cogent, as it means their customers get Netflix service, making them more likely to keep their Internet service, because if they had a competitive choice, they would switch to a different ISP with better Netflix service.

IF ISP's were rational actors in a competitive ISP marketplace, THEY would be paying Cogent to make sure they got the best bandwidth through to Netflix.

What this very clearly is about is using a lame excuse like peering to unethically use their local cable monopolies to block out a successful competitor from competing with their Cable packages and On Demand services.

This kind of behavior is illegal under U.S. Antitrust law. Federal prosecutors should be all over this, but they aren't, because the cable lobby owns Washington...

Sometimes i wonder if we live in a western civilized democracy, or if we live in a third world corrupt banana republic dictatorship...

 

[NeghVar]

Disagree.

Sometimes i wonder if we live in a western civilized democracy, or if we live in a third world corrupt banana republic dictatorship...

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. If we were a democracy, we would have a say/vote in every act, bill or law that is proposed by any federal, state or local government.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. If we were a democracy, we would have a say/vote in every act, bill or law that is proposed by any federal, state or local government.

LOL, not this again.

Sounds like someone doesn't know the definition of democracy

A democracy is ANY form of government in which the power ultimately is traced back to the people.

There are many forms of democracy, including (but not all inclusive):

• The Swiss direct democracy model (which you are referring to) which is very rare. I can only think of one country that operates like this.
• Parliamentary systems (with or without constitutional monarchies) where people vote for a party, and the party decides who represents that party in various positions
• A Constitutional republic like our own,

A constitutional republic is neither a parliamentary system, nor a direct democracy, but it is still a form of democracy.

So yes, the U.S. very definitely IS a democracy, it's just a different FORM of democracy than what you are thinking of.

 

[chrcoluk]

Is there anyone left that isn't charging Netflix for a direct connection to their network?

yeah all the non USA providers, its only greedy USA isp's doing this.

 

[NeghVar]

yeah all the non USA providers, its only greedy USA isp's doing this.

Because we are driven by the POWER of the CORPORATIONS. Power of the people is an illusion. The deep-pocket ISPs and their lobbyists have most of our government in their iron fist.
Though we are able to elect our politicians (our only shred of democracy). It's the same in the end.

ISPs will eventually be charging everyone on all sides. Jack up the prices, degrade the quality of service and give us the finger when we complain because they have a monopoly and the only choice we have is to take it up the rear.

 

[chrcoluk]

yeah the .us the isp market is messed up.

in the uk in most areas people have access to dozens of isp's as the company that owns the local loop (BT) is forced to wholesale it to everyone. So if someone deliberately slowed down netflix, it would hit the press, and everyone would flock to a competitor. Which is why it wont happen here.

 

[Benzino]

We might as well call in the government to manage the backbone. They already monitor shit anyways, no extra harm could possibly be done. They'd never determine what we can or can't see if they managed by the Internet backbone - would they?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

We might as well call in the government to manage the backbone. They already monitor shit anyways, no extra harm could possibly be done. They'd never determine what we can or can't see if they managed by the Internet backbone - would they?

Yeah, you know, the argument against something like this is usually that government is inefficient and might spy on you...


...well government is spying on us already, and I'd rather have an unintentionally inefficient organization running it, than one that is intentionally trying to screw over it's users.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Yeah, you know, the argument against something like this is usually that government is inefficient and might spy on you...


...well government is spying on us already, and I'd rather have an unintentionally inefficient organization running it, than one that is intentionally trying to screw over it's users.

Essentially, a federal interstate system