Major U.S. Internet Providers Accused of Deliberately Slowing Traffic

[Train]

That's not what happened at all. Netflix and comcast decided to peer directly with each other. The result of that is increased throughput for comcast subscribers which is the typical result of such an agreement.

That's a huge load of bullshit.

First off, Netflix does not own any data centers. They can't do peering agreements with anyone.

Netflix is hosted by Amazon's cloud services. Comcast wouldn't just peer with Netflix, they would have to peer with everything coming out of Amazon data centers, which is Netflix and about 100,000 other customers.

Comcast was specifically throttling Netflix's domain names. They got PAID to stop throttling. The basically blackmailed Netflix.

 

[spidey07]

That's a huge load of bullshit.

First off, Netflix does not own any data centers. They can't do peering agreements with anyone.

Netflix is hosted by Amazon's cloud services. Comcast wouldn't just peer with Netflix, they would have to peer with everything coming out of Amazon data centers, which is Netflix and about 100,000 other customers.

Comcast was specifically throttling Netflix's domain names. They got PAID to stop throttling. The basically blackmailed Netflix.

Netflix ASN could for sure peer through Amazon's cloud services with comcast. It would only apply to that particular ASN and it's networks.

I expect proof of this rumor of "throttling". It's very easy to detect with a packet capture, I'm sure somebody can provide one that proves this?

 

[Markbnj]

Netflix pays their providers to deliver the content you requested. That's how it should work and always has. It's when netflix expects to have a one sided peering relationship where they can dump as much traffic onto a network without bringing anything else to the agreement such as other network reachability or 50/50 traffic split without paying that a huge problem arises in that they aren't paying for their traffic.

You obviously don't get how this works. To put it in simple terms for you, you're saying we Comcast customers should all be paying them twice: once for our broadband connection, and again through passed-on tolls they charge content providers. This is apparently because they are incurring unfair burdens peering with large providers like Netflix. Leave aside for the moment that this is completely, demonstrably untrue. Even if it were true, why would they not just raise my rates to cover the costs? They have monopoly or near-monopoly power in my market. Why would that not be easier than trying to compel content providers to come up with cash?

The answer is that I am already more than covering my costs, as indicated by their SEC filings. They are seeking additional tolls simply because they can. If you don't get this than any further conversation is probably futile, because you can just keep repeating Comcast's story all day.

 

[Sonikku]

Don't like it, run an encrypted connection. Then nobody can throttle your netflix.

 

[spidey07]

You obviously don't get how this works. To put it in simple terms for you, you're saying we Comcast customers should all be paying them twice: once for our broadband connection, and again through passed-on tolls they charge content providers. This is apparently because they are incurring unfair burdens peering with large providers like Netflix. Leave aside for the moment that this is completely, demonstrably untrue. Even if it were true, why would they not just raise my rates to cover the costs? They have monopoly or near-monopoly power in my market. Why would that not be easier than trying to compel content providers to come up with cash?

The answer is that I am already more than covering my costs, as indicated by their SEC filings. They are seeking additional tolls simply because they can. If you don't get this than any further conversation is probably futile, because you can just keep repeating Comcast's story all day.

No, I'm saying Netflix should be paying for their traffic and in turn you pay netflix. That is what is happening and how it should be. You don't get to dump a crap ton of data onto the Internet for free without offering something in return. It's not free, never has been.

 

[spidey07]

Don't like it, run an encrypted connection. Then nobody can throttle your netflix.

Encrypted video is extremely east to spot and shape. It has it's own signature in fact in packet shapers.

 

[Markbnj]

Don't like it, run an encrypted connection. Then nobody can throttle your netflix.

That's only true if they're doing packet-shaping, which they probably are, but in Netflix's case a lot of the traffic comes in over specific peering points with players like Level3 and Cogent. All they have to do is not upgrade those ports. Level3 explained exactly what was going on and showed the relevant congestion data in two recent blog posts. The only congested ports they have among all their peering relationships are those with five or six last-mile monopoly ISPs. It's an attempt to leverage that monopoly power to generate a revenue stream from content providers, period. I think the ISPs should be allowed to go ahead with this, and in return they should be required by law to lease bandwidth on their hybrid fiber/coax network to other providers.

 

[Markbnj]

No, I'm saying Netflix should be paying for their traffic and in turn you pay netflix. That is what is happening and how it should be. You don't get to dump a crap ton of data onto the Internet for free without offering something in return. It's not free, never has been.

Ok, we're going to agree to disagree here. At least I am, because there is no basis for any further discussion if that's your view of the situation. You can have the last word, but I'll leave this: Netflix traffic has not increased Comcast's network operational costs by one penny since inception. Not. A. Single. Penny.

 

[spidey07]

Ok, we're going to agree to disagree here. At least I am, because there is no basis for any further discussion if that's your view of the situation. You can have the last word, but I'll leave this: Netflix traffic has not increased Comcast's network operational costs by one penny since inception. Not. A. Single. Penny.

Yes it has. It takes significant upgrades to deal with video. Comcast has performed those upgrades to enhance customer experience. It cost money to increase bandwidth, it's not free.

When a single content provider is now consuming 30-45% of your downstream traffic significant investments (all be it those are CAPEX) must be made to accommodate that increase.

 

[MarkXIX]

I assume you have a packet trace showing loss, TCP windows closing, high jitter or any way to prove your accusations? I need proof, not non-technical anecdotal stories.

Stop demanding things you know customers can't provide. I run a big freakin' network too and have I tens of thousands of customers in a metro area. Short of some Comcast insider deciding to pull an Edward Snowden with Comcast gear network configs, no one can know that for sure.

You're caught up in that "network engineer" bullshit where you think you know so much because you can run a packet sniffer that the customer saying something is wrong somewhere means that it can't be the network. Been there, done that, got that t-shirt a long time ago.

The reality is, as customers and observers, we have what's available to us. Service was good, then it was shitty, then when a deal was cut, it was good again. I don't give a damn what network configuration was applied where or by whom in that scenario unless it was done to gain an unfair bargaining position. As a customer, I would be pissed, hard evidence or no hard evidence. Customers had all the evidence they needed from personal experience. So, just because you don't have a shell casing, doesn't mean someone didn't get shot.

 

[Markbnj]

Yes it has. It takes significant upgrades to deal with video. Comcast has performed those upgrades to enhance customer experience. It cost money to increase bandwidth, it's not free.

When a single content provider is now consuming 30-45% of your downstream traffic significant investments (all be it those are CAPEX) must be made to accommodate that increase.

I'm trying to not argue fruitlessly with you, but man, come on. You didn't answer the most important question: what if there was no single content provider they could hold hostage? What if I write a simple client app that everyone can download that just spawns itself as many times as memory will allow and then pulls video urls off Google and streams them? What if I could increase my bandwidth utilization to near the monthly data caps just hitting random video sites? Who the hell would they hold hostage then? I pay them for connection to the network, just as Netflix pays their ISPs for connections to networks. If I am not using anywhere near the bandwidth I'm paying for (and I'm not) then where are the costs that they so desperately need to pass on to Netflix? Are you saying they sold me something they didn't have?

I think if Comcast wants to pursue this line of logic they should have to identify the specific costs that they've incurred from handling Netflix traffic. That's Netflix traffic, not "video." They aren't trying to hold "video" up for hundreds of millions of dollars. Saying they had to increase capacity for "video" is really ridiculous. It's like saying they incurred unexpected and burdensome costs because of "internet." You know, that thing their business model is founded on.

I really have a hard time believing you've bought this so completely.

 

[MongGrel]

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/major-u-s-internet-providers-accused-of-deliberately-84924844214.html



Greedy fucking bastards!

"Throttling" has been going on many years.


:sneaky:

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, I'm saying Netflix should be paying for their traffic and in turn you pay netflix. That is what is happening and how it should be. You don't get to dump a crap ton of data onto the Internet for free without offering something in return. It's not free, never has been.

Maybe you are new to this whole internet thing, so let me explain. Netflix generates no traffic. Comcast Customers request traffic from Netflix, just like they do from a billion other services on the internet, which Netflix then fulfills. Therefore it is not Netflix generating traffic, it is Comcast generating traffic.

If I buy a bunch of stuff from Walmart and leave it in the streets of my neighborhood you would not say that Walmart is creating traffic. So, why do you think that people living in the Comcast neighborhood buying stuff from Netflix is Netflix causing problems?

 

[spidey07]

Maybe you are new to this whole internet thing, so let me explain. Netflix generates no traffic. Comcast Customers request traffic from Netflix, just like they do from a billion other services on the internet, which Netflix then fulfills. Therefore it is not Netflix generating traffic, it is Comcast generating traffic.

If I buy a bunch of stuff from Walmart and leave it in the streets of my neighborhood you would not say that Walmart is creating traffic. So, why do you think that people living in the Comcast neighborhood buying stuff from Netflix is Netflix causing problems?

Netflix generates a TON of traffic, so much so that it is the #1 application on consumer facing ISPs in the evening by a wide margin.

To use your analogy, netflix is delivering a package. They need to pay for that delivery. Now if they accepted the same amount of traffic (packages) in return as opposed to being completely onesided towards Comcast and other residential ISPs you could make your point and as such typical bidirectional peering agreements aren't as expensive as it is mutually beneficial to both parties. Netflix places an extremely high burden on Comcast, they need to pay.

Netflix now has better routes to Comcast, customers are happy, service has improved 65%, win/win. There may even be guaranteed service levels that Comcast is offering NetFlix giving an even more positive user experience.

The fundamental problem here is people don't know how the Internet works. I can't get why folks complain over better service for no additional cost.

To me it looks like Cogent is the one holding ISPs hostage and demanding more money for the asymetrical load being incurred by NetFlix. ISPs of course will look at options to bypass Cogent and that is what they have done, to the betterment of their customers at no additional cost. So Cogent and L3 are crying foul because they're losing that revenue that is now out of their middleman hands.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Netflix generates a TON of traffic, so much so that it is the #1 application on consumer facing ISPs in the evening by a wide margin.

No it does not. Comcast generates the traffic, Netflix only fulfills those traffic requests. With out content providers there would be no need for Comcast to sell internet service. They can't then turn around and be upset at the the very thing they are selling.

To use your analogy, netflix is delivering a package. They need to pay for that delivery.

Well that fell apart quick. UPS certainly uses more traffic then many other services in my neighborhood, but the city does not expect them to pay more because of that.

 

[Crusty]

Netflix generates a TON of traffic, so much so that it is the #1 application on consumer facing ISPs in the evening by a wide margin.

To use your analogy, netflix is delivering a package. They need to pay for that delivery. Now if they accepted the same amount of traffic (packages) in return as opposed to being completely onesided towards Comcast and other residential ISPs you could make your point and as such typical bidirectional peering agreements aren't as expensive as it is mutually beneficial to both parties. Netflix places an extremely high burden on Comcast, they need to pay.

Netflix now has better routes to Comcast, customers are happy, service has improved 65%, win/win. There may even be guaranteed service levels that Comcast is offering NetFlix giving an even more positive user experience.

The fundamental problem here is people don't know how the Internet works. I can't get why folks complain over better service for no additional cost.

To me it looks like Cogent is the one holding ISPs hostage and demanding more money for the asymetrical load being incurred by NetFlix. ISPs of course will look at options to bypass Cogent and that is what they have done, to the betterment of their customers at no additional cost. So Cogent and L3 are crying foul because they're losing that revenue that is now out of their middleman hands.

But I'm already paying MY ISP to deliver the package to ME. Just like I pay UPS to deliver my Amazon packages to me.

Why should Netflix then have to go and pay my ISP to ensure the package I'm paying for got delivered?

 

[spidey07]

No it does not. Comcast generates the traffic, Netflix only fulfills those traffic requests. With out content providers there would be no need for Comcast to sell internet service. They can't then turn around and be upset at the the very thing they are selling.


Well that fell apart quick. UPS certainly uses more traffic then many other services in my neighborhood, but the city does not expect them to pay more because of that.

/facepalm

Nexflix generates the traffic, there is no question of that. They are the sender of the traffic, they generate it.

And you can bet your booty UPS pays your city and state a ton by being a transporter. But these analogies fail because it simply isn't how the Internet works. Unless you do it for a living you really can't comprehend it.

 

[JujuFish]

You are truly bewildering, spidey. I would call you a troll, except I think you actually believe the nonsense you spout.

 

[DrDoug]

/facepalm

Nexflix generates the traffic, there is no question of that. They are the sender of the traffic, they generate it.

And you can bet your booty UPS pays your city and state a ton by being a transporter. But these analogies fail because it simply isn't how the Internet works. Unless you do it for a living you really can't comprehend it.

Wow, you really don't know how the internets work, do ya?

Netflix doesn't send out a darn thing until someone, like say a Comcast customer, requests it. It will just sit there and do absolutely nothing, generating no traffic. A request from someone, like a Comcast customer (who has paid for their internet connection), to Netflix is the inbound request (to Netflix). Netflix responds to this request by sending the requested data to the requester (like that Comcast customer mentioned above). That outbound data goes out on lines that Netflix fully pays for, just like you (or that Comcast customer) do at home!

Pretty easy to understand, right?

Comcast decides to throttle inbound Netflix traffic that their customers are requesting because it's so darned popular with their customers, complaining that Netflix is using up a bunch of their bandwidth. Any sane person can see that it's their customers who are trying to use the bandwidth that they have paid for and never get, but Comcast wants you to ignore those pesky little details. So Comcast holds their customers hostage, punishing them with throttling until Netflix pays to free them from their agony.

It's easy to see if you understand how these darned internet tubes are plumbed.

 

[sdifox]

To those of you doubting Spidey's sanity, he works for the big providers. That might explain his position on things a bit.

 

[Wonderful Pork]

I can't get why folks complain over better service for no additional cost.

Netflix has announced a price increase of $1-$2/month (12.5-25%).

So, not better service for no additional cost, simple an additional transfer of funds from the customer (me) to an ISP (Comcast) by way of Netflix.

 

[Jodell88]

To those of you doubting Spidey's sanity, he works for the big providers. That might explain his position on things a bit.

We already know his stance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso

 

[spidey07]

To those of you doubting Spidey's sanity, he works for the big providers. That might explain his position on things a bit.

I work for no ISP nor tier-1 provider. I merely consult on how to build their infrastructure and how to best adapt to changing demands.

As I said before and many years ago - welcome to the future of the Internet. You cannot stop the technological progression, no matter how much you cry foul.

 

[spidey07]

Netflix has announced a price increase of $1-$2/month (12.5-25%).

So, not better service for no additional cost, simple an additional transfer of funds from the customer (me) to an ISP (Comcast) by way of Netflix.

And you know what?

You will pay that fee. You will pay that fee to have your crack. You think you're smart, think you know better...get outraged. But you WILL pay. You can choose not to pay, but you will pay for that service. It's just business, you WILL pay.

It's time NetFlix paid their fair share for dumping all their shit on to the intarwebs. It's not a fucking dump truck, they need to pay.

 

[GrumpyMan]

The solution to all this is quite simple, turn off the TV and gadgets forever and read some books.