5 ms·

You're speaking in general, I'm being specific. The way Netflix has implemented peering is by literally building servers containing their content library, and

by dimino 10y ago

You're speaking in general, I'm being specific. The way Netflix has implemented peering is by literally building servers containing their content library, and racking them in ISP datacenters. And there is a very real difference between peering agreements and throttling. The effect in both cases is slower Netflix, but they are completely different, from a technology and practical standpoint. "Basically the same" doesn't pass muster when it comes to something like this, which is ruled entirely by subtlety and nuance.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> You're speaking in general, I'm being specific. No, I'm being specific about what Comcast should be obliged to do. If you bring fiber to their regional NOC they should have to deliver the traffic to their regional customers. It doesn't matter what Netflix is actually doing right now -- they probably wouldn't be doing it if Comcast hadn't made it a requirement for high bandwidth access to their customers. > And there is a very real difference between peering agreements and throttling. The effect in both cases is slower Netflix, but they are completely different, from a technology and practical standpoint. No they aren't, they're completely identical. There is utterly no difference between throttling a port down to 100Mbps and intentionally using a 100Mbps port. The only thing you can even argue is that in theory a 10Gbps port would be more expensive, but it's more expensive by an amortized annual cost of something like $50. It's a negligible amount of money which is several orders of magnitude off from what Comcast wants to charge for peering.
- dimino 10y ago
  I'm honestly having a hard time understanding what you're talking about because Netflix is not bringing fiber to Comcast's regional NOC, nor is Comcast performing any traffic shaping whatsoever on Netflix traffic when they're not honoring their peering agreement. Literally neither of the things you said should be forced to happen have been requested by Netflix or Comcast. Netflix didn't want to pay anything for housing Netflix's server in Comcast's datacenter, rather than continue to pay Comcast for their peering agreement and network upgrades required to honor their peering agreement. Comcast said "no", and stopped peering with Netflix (very briefly was this actually happening, Netflix quickly acquiesced). This sent Netflix's traffic to Comcast users over the greater Internet, which is slower. THIS rerouting is what caused the slowdown, not any slowing via network devices. The Internet, as a whole, is slower than a direct connection between Comcast and Netflix. That's the whole reason for peering agreements, after all. Comcast never targeted Netflix with any kind of slowness, with hardware or software. So again, I'm confused why you think this has anything to do with "running fiber" or "intentionally using a 100Mbps port". Neither of those things have happened.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    Maybe the reason you're confused is that at this level, peering is the internet. Comcast has a NOC that terminates connections going to its last mile customers and then peers with other networks. There is no separate "the internet" here, there are only peering connections to Netflix, Level 3, Google, etc. So if Comcast doesn't peer with Netflix then the only way for Netflix traffic to get to Comcast customers is to travel via some network Comcast does peer with, like Level 3. The problem is, this gives Comcast monopoly power. However much Netflix traffic has to get from Netflix to Comcast customers, so regardless of which peer that traffic comes through, Comcast absent regulation can charge them monopoly rents in exchange for not having a link which is too slow to carry the traffic. There is no inherent need for Netflix servers to be anywhere near Comcast. Netflix could put their servers in Amazon and pay Level 3 to deliver the traffic to Comcast, which is what they used to do. The problem is then Comcast can charge Level 3 the monopoly rents which Level 3 would then have to pass on and make the arrangement unprofitable, which is what Comcast wants because then Netflix is forced to buy those services from Comcast at higher prices. Now suppose Comcast has to do free peering with anybody. Then Level 3 can get free peering (i.e. bring fiber to Comcast) and Netflix can pay Amazon and Level 3 (or Microsoft and Cogent or anybody else). They can even continue buying from Comcast, but would only do that if Comcast charges competitive rates instead of monopoly rents -- which is the whole point.
    - dimino 10y ago
      Yes, that's true, but again, this is all very different from throttling. The person I replied to asked if Netflix is able to stop paying Comcast. I responded that, since refusing a peering agreement is not the same as throttling, the implication is Netflix will likely continue to have to pay Comcast. I fail to see how any of what you've written here has much to do with your claim that peering agreements and throttling are the same thing. To be clear to anyone else reading this, they absolutely are not. They're just literally different terms for different things. From Wikipedia: > Bandwidth throttling is the intentional slowing of Internet service by an Internet service provider. [0] > In computer networking, peering is a voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the users of each network. [1] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering You said that peering agreements and throttling are "completely identical". I guess you should start making the argument to Wikipedia to merge the two pages, then?

by dimino 10y ago

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> You're speaking in general, I'm being specific. No, I'm being specific about what Comcast should be obliged to do. If you bring fiber to their regional NOC they should have to deliver the traffic to their regional customers. It doesn't matter what Netflix is actually doing right now -- they probably wouldn't be doing it if Comcast hadn't made it a requirement for high bandwidth access to their customers. > And there is a very real difference between peering agreements and throttling. The effect in both cases is slower Netflix, but they are completely different, from a technology and practical standpoint. No they aren't, they're completely identical. There is utterly no difference between throttling a port down to 100Mbps and intentionally using a 100Mbps port. The only thing you can even argue is that in theory a 10Gbps port would be more expensive, but it's more expensive by an amortized annual cost of something like $50. It's a negligible amount of money which is several orders of magnitude off from what Comcast wants to charge for peering.

dimino 10y ago
I'm honestly having a hard time understanding what you're talking about because Netflix is not bringing fiber to Comcast's regional NOC, nor is Comcast performing any traffic shaping whatsoever on Netflix traffic when they're not honoring their peering agreement. Literally neither of the things you said should be forced to happen have been requested by Netflix or Comcast. Netflix didn't want to pay anything for housing Netflix's server in Comcast's datacenter, rather than continue to pay Comcast for their peering agreement and network upgrades required to honor their peering agreement. Comcast said "no", and stopped peering with Netflix (very briefly was this actually happening, Netflix quickly acquiesced). This sent Netflix's traffic to Comcast users over the greater Internet, which is slower. THIS rerouting is what caused the slowdown, not any slowing via network devices. The Internet, as a whole, is slower than a direct connection between Comcast and Netflix. That's the whole reason for peering agreements, after all. Comcast never targeted Netflix with any kind of slowness, with hardware or software. So again, I'm confused why you think this has anything to do with "running fiber" or "intentionally using a 100Mbps port". Neither of those things have happened.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  Maybe the reason you're confused is that at this level, peering is the internet. Comcast has a NOC that terminates connections going to its last mile customers and then peers with other networks. There is no separate "the internet" here, there are only peering connections to Netflix, Level 3, Google, etc. So if Comcast doesn't peer with Netflix then the only way for Netflix traffic to get to Comcast customers is to travel via some network Comcast does peer with, like Level 3. The problem is, this gives Comcast monopoly power. However much Netflix traffic has to get from Netflix to Comcast customers, so regardless of which peer that traffic comes through, Comcast absent regulation can charge them monopoly rents in exchange for not having a link which is too slow to carry the traffic. There is no inherent need for Netflix servers to be anywhere near Comcast. Netflix could put their servers in Amazon and pay Level 3 to deliver the traffic to Comcast, which is what they used to do. The problem is then Comcast can charge Level 3 the monopoly rents which Level 3 would then have to pass on and make the arrangement unprofitable, which is what Comcast wants because then Netflix is forced to buy those services from Comcast at higher prices. Now suppose Comcast has to do free peering with anybody. Then Level 3 can get free peering (i.e. bring fiber to Comcast) and Netflix can pay Amazon and Level 3 (or Microsoft and Cogent or anybody else). They can even continue buying from Comcast, but would only do that if Comcast charges competitive rates instead of monopoly rents -- which is the whole point.
  - dimino 10y ago
    Yes, that's true, but again, this is all very different from throttling. The person I replied to asked if Netflix is able to stop paying Comcast. I responded that, since refusing a peering agreement is not the same as throttling, the implication is Netflix will likely continue to have to pay Comcast. I fail to see how any of what you've written here has much to do with your claim that peering agreements and throttling are the same thing. To be clear to anyone else reading this, they absolutely are not. They're just literally different terms for different things. From Wikipedia: > Bandwidth throttling is the intentional slowing of Internet service by an Internet service provider. [0] > In computer networking, peering is a voluntary interconnection of administratively separate Internet networks for the purpose of exchanging traffic between the users of each network. [1] [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering You said that peering agreements and throttling are "completely identical". I guess you should start making the argument to Wikipedia to merge the two pages, then?