Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by HardOCP News, Jul 11, 2014.
It's all your fault. No it isn't. Yes it is. It's your fault. No it isn't. Yes it is.
I know it will never happen, but, both company's should go out on a field trip into areas and test speed together .
Netflix has offered FREE cache boxes to give to Verizon.. they said no...
as someone said in a mail list i am on
It does matter because if ISPs are able to force Netflix to keep upping their price (they have done it once recently so far and will do it again if more ISPs start refusing to offer the service their users are paying for), the price of our connections will NEVER, EVER go down.
There is no positive side to this for the consumer whatsoever. Comcast and Verizon are not doing this for the consumer or for anyone else but themselves.
I like the shipping company analogy. As a customer, I am paying the shipping company to deliver my package. If a few million people order stuff at the same time, it's understandable that there may be some delays. However, it would be completely ludicrous for the shipping company to blame Amazon or whoever for sending out too many packages.
Verizon offers consumers internet access with advertised levels of service. Verizon should be able to provide that level of service for every customer all the time. If a customer who subscribes to Netflix draws more bandwidth then Verizon has agreed to provide per their service agreement that is one issue. But if the usage is not in excess of that agreement then it is incumbent on Verizon to provide the level of service that they have advertised and accept payment for from their customers.
Stirring the pot
In the above example I would definitely blame Amazon if they have a contract for X number of packages a day, start shipping 2X packages per day and expect the shipper to up their resources to handle the load. Amazon pays the shipper to ship your stuff, which they then pass the cost onto the buyer.
Why can't Netflix being thought of as a Verizon customer as well? One that has maxed out their provisioned "upload" and refuses to pay for a faster connection.
If you host a server and demand is saturating your pipe, you pay to upgrade that pipe. I know peering is completely different, but you get my point.
Maybe Netflix should have monthly data caps?
Screw that analogy.
Making the argument that you are burdened by inequitable peering volume when you sell a product to your customers that gives them significantly more inbound bandwidth than outbound is just talking out your ass. They don't expect to generate outbound traffic in nearly the volume of inbound traffic. Their sales model says so right there in the numbers. So they are either ripping off their customers or ripping off those they expect to pay for peering imbalances.
No need to make it analogous to anything else.
Because it's absolutely fucking idiotic to think of them that way.
Customers pay Verizon to access the internet. Netflix gives customers a reason to pay Verizon to access the internet.
Netflix is NOT a customer of Verizon. Period. We as customers are paying Verizon to bring Netflix to us.
A web service shares no chunk of the blame.
You pay an ISP for a connection to the internet, and for the amount of bandwidth.
If the ISP starts messing around with your bandwidth based on how it tracks your usage, well, then they are at blame.
I DO NOT want my ISP screening my activity, even though here in Canada, Roger's is known for this, and Verizon seems no different.
This wouldn't be an issue if people had 3-4 ISP's to choose from in every state. Corrupt politicians = oligopolies and crony capitalism. Vote anti incumbent.
Amazon was just used as an example since they're one of the largest etailers right now. What if it's a small business where shipping costs are calculated and charged on an order-by-order basis. The shipping company gets paid for its services and the customers should reasonably expect their packages to arrive in a timely manner. Not enough resources you say? Then get more with the boatloads of money you're making from your customers.
If an analogy helps even one other person to better understand the facts, then it's worth saying.
If I pay for a specified amount of bandwidth at a given speed & have agreed with the ISP that it will not drop under 80% of that specified speed then it had better not drop. If their network cannot deliver the contracted speed to all of their customers at the same time then they are guilty of false advertising & more importantly, fraud! It's none of their business where I go on the information super highway, it's their business to make sure that I get where I'm going at the specified speed at all times. (within the continental U.S.) they are nothing more than a delivery service, that's it.
Imagine if UPS & Fed Ex never upgraded or repaired their trucks & delivered everything late to everybody. How would that go over.
I wouldn't say the web services are completely blameless ... there isn't a direct connection between Netflix and Verizon (yet) ... An ISP only owns a portion of the internet path between them and the various services ... it is more akin to a shipper having many roads to choose from (some are faster but they are toll roads) ... the Comcast deal allowed Netflix to build a hub closer to their customer in Comcast (similar to what Amazon does to keep their shipping times down) ... although it would be nice if all companies could be like Google and do this sort of performance on their own, that isn't the reality currently and the web services do own some responsibility, if they engage in high performance activities, to insure their web partners are up to the task also
Well Netflix is someone's customer, somewhere they have an ISP, somewhere they pay for their bandwidth and service. But the way you have posted it, if I am a Verizon Customer and you are a Cox customer and I send you an email, I need to pay both Verizon and Cox for the bandwidth and so do you, so both the sender and receiver must pay both ends of the pipe.
How does that logic fit your question?
Netflix should just drop its Verizon customers and be done with it. Maybe then Verizon will grow up.
That would defiantly fix Verizon's attitude. Unfortunately it won't happen.
How would that pressure verizon into growing up? If people had good ISP options then yea, maybe you have a semi-valid point but all that would do is F Netflix's public opinion.
I meant definitely, but defiantly works too.
I think that would only hurt Netflix ... Verizon has a streaming partnership with Redbox plus their own streaming services ... since they generally only compete with one or two other companies with similar speeds (only Time Warner where I live) the risk of a mass exodus is low ... I don't think that strategy would work exceptionally well for Netflix
In the fall I move to a new city where Comcast is the only provider so we'll see how the Comcast/Netflix deal is working then
A few things.
Netflix is responsible for network congestion.
However that doesn't mean that the ISPs are off the hook for providing the level of service their customers are paying for. Networking is very complex, net neutrality is not the answer now or ever. However regulations do need to be put in place that makes it illegal to intentionally cause delays or use practices that cause companies that offer products that compete with your own. I.E. Comcast would not be able to slow down bandwidth for Netflix while improving bandwidth for their service. If they slow down Netflix then it has to be a network wide decision that will affect everything that has less priority than critical network traffic.
However don't think if you support net neutrality you are supporting the good fight. Net neutrality will lead to pay per byte services. Yes I know the ISPs wont actually bill you per byte, more like a GB, but the idea is still the same. This is the only real way to fairly provide internet service. You will pay for a speed then pay for the bandwidth you use. The amounts will be roughly what you pay now. Most people will be slightly lower and others will be drastically higher but over all it will be similar to what we have now.
You have this with your cell phone. Why should you really expect anything different at your house.
Not if droves and droves of Verizon customers went to DSL. Remember, most people have internet connections for essentially 4 things. Netflix, Facebook, email, and light web browsing. Pretty much in that order.
I don't think Netflix has a contract with Verizon to that effect, so its not really a good example.
Wonder if any of these problems occur with RedBox (provided by Verizon FIOS)?
Here was my problem with the cache boxes. On one hand you can look at it as them saying they are trying to help. From Verizons end though I'd say it looks like hey why don't you give us free rack space and bandwidth to host our stuff?
Anyway that article isn't the first time I've seen netflix get called out saying they were not choosing the best routes when alternatives were open. The article does give a basic explanation on peering between the tier 1 networks though. One of the big arguments is that netflix is really pushing it out of wack. Really I see this issue as one between netflix and its isp. They are calling for extra bandwidth that otherwise wouldn't be needed and asking everyone to pay for it. I see them as more of an exigent circumstance, in the sense that it is out of the norm.
While not exactly the same thing I can think about common carriers and warehouse type online stores. They move to get closer to the end user. This means that amazon is building warehouses everywhere to get stuff out faster. This also means using multiple shipping vendors. In a sense Netflix doesn't appear to be doing this despite being huge. Sure I'm guessing they are in a bunch of amazon data centers but every time this comes up it seems like they are just using Cogent for the most part. One would think in a traditional sense you would using multiple vendors(other tier 1 providers like verizon, level 3, CenturyLink, etc) in the same way someone like newegg or amazon can use usps, ups, smaller vendors like lasership or some combination to get their product out. Peering agreements in a sense make this unnecessary for most internet companies but once again netflix isn't like most others.
While this does need to be worked out(I like my netflix as many others do) I have to think netflix isn't doing everything they can on the backend. It does seem like they are trying to soil the name of others trying to get them to pay for upgrades that they maybe shouldn't be.
I view this like this (car analogy incoming!).
Netflix is a car maker who came up with a great new way to make cars, so they're more affordable now. Tons of new drivers are buying them up and filling the roads. The city infrastructure sees this and adapts, expanding their capacity (tier 1 providers, aka, wholesale ISPs), allowing these new drivers to expand their shopping/living range.
Meanwhile, Verizon operates a huge multi-use property. But the influx of people able to drive there has crowded their capacity. Their clients start bitching that customers are turning away because of the traffic issues. Instead of expanding their own traffic network to accommodate demand for their clients (retailers,etc). They shrug and say " not our problem, talk to the car maker, they created this congestion!".
I'm assuming that the backbone providers aren't over capacity and this is a symptom of Verizon failing to adapt to their customers needs while simultaneously overselling their network - something they got away with until their customers actually had a need for all that bandwidth they were paying for years.
Too obvious when your 75mbps service can't keep up with a competing 15mpbs one Verizon, do a better job at BSing next time.
I paid for an argument. You're just... contradicting me!
No, I'm not.
Yes, you are!
$60 a month for a 50/25 FiOS connection that can't maintain a HD buffer on Netflix during peak hours is a fail. Of course, without competition, my only other choice is TWC RoadRunner cable internet. The whole ISP situation in this country is just pathetic.
Honestly, couldn't this be solved by ISPs simply caching videos that are popular? Whether it's Netflix releasing a season of House of Cards or it's the last episode of True Detective on HBO, it seems like it's in the interest of both the ISP and the content provider to simply cache the content within the ISP. I mean just imagine if each ISP cached all of the new episodes of <insert hot netflix series>. It wouldn't take a lot of space, but it'd mean that all that traffic would be inside the ISP's network. Hell, hasn't Netflix offered to locate servers within the Big ISP's network (where I'm sure Netflix would willingly pay for the space and electricity)?
This problem is solvable, but I don't buy the ISP's take that they're the good guys. We pay for bandwidth and if you're unfortunate enough to have a cap, then you pay for a certain amount of data/month.
Finally, it's not like FIOS is cheap. People with FIOS are already paying a premium. It's incumbent upon Verizon to make it work. The primary reason people pay them is to get content and if you've got FIOS, you probably didn't get it to load [H] a half a second faster.
Municipal fiber. Might not be an option everywhere, but it's something every city/county should consider. Of course you gotta overbuild the network (because it'll take 20-30 years to pay it off in most cases), but there are places that blew past FIOS 5 or 6 years ago (back when everyone here thought FIOS was king).
Don't think they're talking about DSL. Unless DSL has made radical advances, it can't do 10Mbps, much less 75.
What verizon is saying is that they are not over capacity in pretty much every area but the links that Cogent is linking to them with which is netflix's isp. Both verizon and cogent are backbone providers. Normally they wouldn't charge each other the 10's of thousands of dollars of cost to add extra 10gb or I guess now maybe 40gb network connections between them. The problem here is the current links would be fine if it wasn't for netflix, or at least that is part of the argument. Netflix is single handedly adding a lot of extra cost to the other tier 1 internet backbone providers as well as the smaller operators that pull off the backbone providers.
With almost every provider this issue doesn't really come up. If bandwith becomes an issue they can just buy more bandwidth from their provider. Netflix is said to use a 1/3 of the prime time bandwidth used in the US. One would think the best way to handle this would be to hook into as many back bone providers as reasonable. They are trying to use 1 which is upsetting the peer agreements that kept everything going with the others.
DSL? Maybe you missed the Verizon FIOS in the chart, it's there as well.
Also even more fascinating is Comcast's chart, magically slower then magically faster within two months of the FCC's hiring of that top Telco Lobbyist.
How the hell are people watching so much Netflix? We searched for a decent comedy to watch for 15 minutes before giving up and watching American Dad reruns On Demand. Their selection keeps getting worse and worse.
Here's the thing though, ISPs have long advertised the rates and service they provide but it's only now that people are actually using it they realize that they can't/don't want to support it. You can't advertise 10Mbps and then not deliver on it. I don't care how many people are watching Netflix, if they're all using their 10Mbps then you should deliver because that's the service you sold them.
If you can't keep up with the demand, then maybe they shouldn't have sold more capacity than they were willing to upgrade their infrastructure to support.
I like how in the end the guy tries to argue that the ISP's shouldn't have to upgrade their infrastructure because "all the people paying the isp" would have to foot the bill.....aren't we already doing that????
ISP's have long tried to just pocket all the money and ignore the poor infrastructures and oversell nodes time and time again, there's a reason we are so low in terms of speeds/data compared to many other places.
This is where the term "peering" really comes into play. Cox and Verizon having an interconnect is mutually beneficial to both companies so as long as traffic back and forth isn't grossly lopsided, both ISPs maintain the link. Netflix isn't an ISP, they're solely a content provider.
That coincides with Comcast and Netflix making a direct peering agreement.