Netflix and AT&T strike deal to boost streaming speeds
-
@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.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
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.
You do not have a peering agreement with your ISP. You have a subscriber agreement (generally). Your subscriber agreement is subject to specified terms of service. Among the ISP requirements should be (but is not in the current design) the commitment of network neutrality from the ISP network to your house. Obviously the customer side of the subscriber ToS can have other stipulations on bandwidth and acceptable use.
Your use of Netflix or any other service should not be impacted by the ISP wishing to provide better QoS to one service over another for a fee for the traffic flowing through their network.
Your use of Netflix or another service can be impacted by the connections from your ISP to the rest of the world. This is the side that peering happens on in almost all cases. Though it does not have to be restricted to here as noted in previous posts.
Your quality of service to Netflix has been degraded because a) VerizonAT&T are intentionally screwing with the traffic on their internal network or b) the peering agreement delivering Netflix content to your ISP is out of tolerance for its negotiated amounts and is being throttled/billed/whatever by your ISP based on their peering agreement with the network dumping the traffic to them.
Example A is also where network neutrality should be enforced, while example B has nothing to do with network neutrality.
-
Hmm... very complex.
-
@JaredBusch So as Netflix is an end point, not a network (in the same way that my home is an endpoint, not a network) what makes one a subscriber and one a peer? AT&T to Verizon where both provide "pass through" networking and not endpoint services (server or subscriber) is what peer to peer used to mean - network providers who provide routing services. Anyone providing an actual service or consuming a service is an end point.
Netflix might be being granted a peering agreement, and I might not be, but the situation is the same that in both case, I am an endpoint (node) and they are an endpoint (node) and we are trying to talk to each other across a network (AT&T, Cablevision, Verizon, etc.) from which the only service either of us pay for is the routing of traffic from one to the other.
Netflix is much bigger than me, but it is still just an endpoint service. You can't get traffic to route from AT&T through Netflix to Verizon for example, so not a network peer. And you can't buy an IP address from Netflix. So Netflix is neither a backhaul carrier nor even an ISP. They are an end node every big as much as I am.
-
@scottalanmiller That is not correct. They are not just an end point. They are also in the business of peering traffic now. They were an end point and they paid their provider for their connection. That provider was out of balance of their peering agreement and that agreement was being enforced by the other parties (Comcast/Verizon/AT&T) causing the issues with the service. This is why Netflix chose to get into the business of peering traffic.
Netflix did not have to. They chose to in order to get around the problem that they were experiencing with their current provider.
-
Think of it this way, what if I got a dual WAN connection at home? I could have Verizon and Cablevision. That's not unlike what we are calling a peering agreement for Netflix. They had a connection to one carrier but they wanted lower latency, better bandwidth or whatever so they got another WAN connection. That's all a peer connection is (normally more than two links, of course.) But it is not fundamentally different than what you can and sometimes do do at home. I don't route traffic between the WAN links, I just use both for myself. Netflix is doing the same, being an end user on multiple networks. Netflix does more detection to determine shortest path to client to determine which of their WAN connections to choose, but you could do that at home if you wanted to.
It's perfectly fine for them to do this and it is fine for the carriers to let them. It makes sense. If you want to talk on the Verizon network with the best possible quality using them as your ISP (getting a peering agreement) allows for that in the best possible way.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller That is not correct. They are not just an end point. They are also in the business of peering traffic now. They were an end point and they paid their provider for their connection. That provider was out of balance of their peering agreement and that agreement was being enforced by the other parties (Comcast/Verizon/AT&T) causing the issues with the service. This is why Netflix chose to get into the business of peering traffic.
Netflix did not have to. They chose to in order to get around the problem that they were experiencing with their current provider.
A peer is still paying a provider for a connection. Using the term peer does change their endpoint status. In what way is Netflix different than any other endpoint other than a piece of paper (maybe not even that) using the term "peer" on it? What is different at the network traffic level?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Think of it this way, what if I got a dual WAN connection at home? I could have Verizon and Cablevision. That's not unlike what we are calling a peering agreement for Netflix. They had a connection to one carrier but they wanted lower latency, better bandwidth or whatever so they got another WAN connection. That's all a peer connection is (normally more than two links, of course.)
Dual subscriber connection is not the same thing. You may use them in a similar fashion, but they are not the same.
