Netflix and AT&T strike deal to boost streaming speeds
-
@Nic said:
Another hit to net neutrality - AT&T charges you to deliver the data, and charges Netflix to deliver the data. It's as if Amazon paid Fedex to deliver the package, and then you had to pay Fedex to deliver the package.
No, no, no, no. This is not correct.
Netflix has chosen to negotiate a direct network to network connection. This is not now and never has been a free process. Peering agreements between for-profit companies have always contained clauses about the balance of traffic.
You are abusing/misusing the term Network Neutrality.
Network Neutrality meant that AT&T was not allowed to differentiate and provide preference among the traffic passing through its network.
Network Neutrality has never meant that AT&T was required to sign a no fee peering agreement (the interconnection between the AT&T network and another network) with highly unbalanced traffic flow.
-
Now, I am 100% ok with people wanting to tell the backbone network carriers that all peering regardless of traffic balance has to be no charge.
Just do not call it Network Neutrality as it is currently being used. This is one of the many reasons that the rules were struck down in the first place.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The Internet has failed. We are going to direct peer to peer.
Maybe Netflix will peer directly to my house.
Netflix will never (in the foreseeable future) deal directly with the "last mile" as it costs too much.
-
if enough people get these Fiber OANs (Open Access Networks) they might. but that's a long streach. We have them here, but I haven't heard of any more of them. Ours was paid for by BTOP and I think it costs 11.5 million for 200 miles of fiber. It supposedly capable of 200 Gbps somehow. But right now we can only get 10gb speed symmetrically on it.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Now, I am 100% ok with people wanting to tell the backbone network carriers that all peering regardless of traffic balance has to be no charge.
Just do not call it Network Neutrality as it is currently being used. This is one of the many reasons that the rules were struck down in the first place.
I don't have a problem with the carriers who have peering points charging the other side who causes a lack of balance - the problem I have is that Netflix is not a backbone provider, hell they are not even an ISP. They are a customer of the ISPs. They shouldn't be involved in the peering discussions at all! Instead Netflix's provider should be the one who's feet are held to the flame (of course the costs passed along to Netflix).
Alternatively (as I think is what's mostly happening), Netflix can create their own contracts, mostly with last mile providers, to bring the content closer to the consumers, taking the peering point pains out of the equation.
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
Now, I am 100% ok with people wanting to tell the backbone network carriers that all peering regardless of traffic balance has to be no charge.
Just do not call it Network Neutrality as it is currently being used. This is one of the many reasons that the rules were struck down in the first place.
I don't have a problem with the carriers who have peering points charging the other side who causes a lack of balance - the problem I have is that Netflix is not a backbone provider, hell they are not even an ISP. They are a customer of the ISPs. They shouldn't be involved in the peering discussions at all! Instead Netflix's provider should be the one who's feet are held to the flame (of course the costs passed along to Netflix).
Alternatively (as I think is what's mostly happening), Netflix can create their own contracts, mostly with last mile providers, to bring the content closer to the consumers, taking the peering point pains out of the equation.
No, Netflix IS a CDN now.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
Now, I am 100% ok with people wanting to tell the backbone network carriers that all peering regardless of traffic balance has to be no charge.
Just do not call it Network Neutrality as it is currently being used. This is one of the many reasons that the rules were struck down in the first place.
I don't have a problem with the carriers who have peering points charging the other side who causes a lack of balance - the problem I have is that Netflix is not a backbone provider, hell they are not even an ISP. They are a customer of the ISPs. They shouldn't be involved in the peering discussions at all! Instead Netflix's provider should be the one who's feet are held to the flame (of course the costs passed along to Netflix).
Alternatively (as I think is what's mostly happening), Netflix can create their own contracts, mostly with last mile providers, to bring the content closer to the consumers, taking the peering point pains out of the equation.
No, Netflix IS a CDN now.
And?
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
Now, I am 100% ok with people wanting to tell the backbone network carriers that all peering regardless of traffic balance has to be no charge.
Just do not call it Network Neutrality as it is currently being used. This is one of the many reasons that the rules were struck down in the first place.
I don't have a problem with the carriers who have peering points charging the other side who causes a lack of balance - the problem I have is that Netflix is not a backbone provider, hell they are not even an ISP. They are a customer of the ISPs. They shouldn't be involved in the peering discussions at all! Instead Netflix's provider should be the one who's feet are held to the flame (of course the costs passed along to Netflix).
Alternatively (as I think is what's mostly happening), Netflix can create their own contracts, mostly with last mile providers, to bring the content closer to the consumers, taking the peering point pains out of the equation.
No, Netflix IS a CDN now.
And?
A CDN is a network and companies that operate networks are the ones that make peering agreements. Netflix is not a consumer.
-
I'm not understanding - help me out a bit more?
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm not understanding - help me out a bit more?
You stated you have no problem with Carriers that have peering agreements.
It is not just backbone infrastructure carriers that make peering agreements. it is anyone (company/school/organisation generally not individuals) that operate a network that make peering agreements.
Netflix does not HAVE to make agreements directly. this is true. But in that case Netflix has to deal with the limitations imposed upon the peering agreement with whoever Netflix is using to deliver the content. This is actually what the problem was. The CDN (content delivery network) that Netflix was using was in being throttled because they were significantly out of balance on their peering agreement.
Netflix then chose to operate the CDN themselves and strike direct peering agreements. They are trying to cry foul and call it a breech of network neutrality. It is not and never has been. It has been Netflix trying to get something for nothing.
Now on a related note, there is the problem with Verizon seeming to intentionally slow the peering connection with the original CDN. That would potentially be a breech of network neutrality depending on the actual details of the peering agreement. IF the agreement actually had a clause for what was to occur when the data flow was out of balance.
-
This post is deleted! -
@JaredBusch said:
You stated you have no problem with Carriers that have peering agreements.
It is not just backbone infrastructure carriers that make peering agreements. it is anyone (company/school/organization generally not individuals) that operate a network that make peering agreements.
Anyone? Unless there is some type of peering agreement in my contract with my local ISP (Cox) I'm not aware of making any type of peering agreement with anyone.
How does a CDN make a peering agreement if they are not also either an ISP who buys from a backbone carrier or is a backbone carrier themselves? Assume they are not, the CDN does not have peering equipment that they manage for connections to those other carriers.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The Internet has failed. We are going to direct peer to peer.
Maybe Netflix will peer directly to my house.
Netflix will never (in the foreseeable future) deal directly with the "last mile" as it costs too much.
You say that. But they have many times the traffic of Google and Google is doing it.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
Now, I am 100% ok with people wanting to tell the backbone network carriers that all peering regardless of traffic balance has to be no charge.
Just do not call it Network Neutrality as it is currently being used. This is one of the many reasons that the rules were struck down in the first place.
I don't have a problem with the carriers who have peering points charging the other side who causes a lack of balance - the problem I have is that Netflix is not a backbone provider, hell they are not even an ISP. They are a customer of the ISPs. They shouldn't be involved in the peering discussions at all! Instead Netflix's provider should be the one who's feet are held to the flame (of course the costs passed along to Netflix).
Alternatively (as I think is what's mostly happening), Netflix can create their own contracts, mostly with last mile providers, to bring the content closer to the consumers, taking the peering point pains out of the equation.
No, Netflix IS a CDN now.
And?
A CDN is a network and companies that operate networks are the ones that make peering agreements. Netflix is not a consumer.
Rackspace and CloudFlare are CDNs. I don't follow the logic. If I run two proxy servers for people, I'm a CDN. But not a peer.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You say that. But they have many times the traffic of Google and Google is doing it.
Barely, in very, very controlled roll outs with a lot of regulatory freedom that the incumbents do not have.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Rackspace and CloudFlare are CDNs. I don't follow the logic. If I run two proxy servers for people, I'm a CDN. But not a peer.
A network operator (a CDN is one such) can make a peering agreement. A network operator is not required to do so. If a network operator wants their network to talk to another network with a specific guarantee of service then they will negotiate a peering agreement. If they do not, then they are at the mercy of the existing peering agreements from the locations providing the internet service.
-
Technically anyone can make a peering agreement. It's like any Internet connection.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Technically anyone can make a peering agreement. It's like any Internet connection.
Right and the traffic passing through that connection should be subject to no other special throttles other than the data throughout balance specified in the agreement.
That is what network neutrality is.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Technically anyone can make a peering agreement. It's like any Internet connection.
Right and the traffic passing through that connection should be subject to no other special throttles other than the data throughout balance specified in the agreement.
That is what network neutrality is.
Correct. So if I have a connection to my ISP they are a peer to my house network and they should not be throttling Netflix or any other service en route to me. If Netflix wants to directly peer with my ISP, that's fine. If they don't, though, I still have my own peer agreement to get them via their peer through the peer to peer Internet connection.
-
Makes sense. Peering is fine, it is throttling that is the problem - forcing new peer agreements when existing peer agreements are already in place.
