4 ms·

For a number of months, several years ago, my Netflix streaming got progressively worse. Frequent drops, sometimes outright failure, particularly during more p

For a number of months, several years ago, my Netflix streaming got progressively worse. Frequent drops, sometimes outright failure, particularly during more peak viewing times. I thought it might be my local trunk hitting capacity, with some new neighbors connected and added load. Then I learned about Comcast's ongoing refusal to increase interconnect capacity, even at Netflix's full expense. The news about this broke, and the PR grew to be so bad that Comcast relented and started installing interconnections. This was also the time when Comcast was trying to get one of its own video streaming products/initiatives off the ground (they made a few distinct pushes, in those years). Quelle coïncidence. Their product then was hardly comparable to Netflix's. But they tried to ram it down their customers' throats, by making Netflix's performance on their network suck. So, any time one of the politicians, current FCC flaks, PR people, or the like tell me we haven't actually seen problems/abuses. Or, in the face of any number of journalists incorrectly reporting this supposed lack of instances of abuse. Well, I try to point them back to this instance -- apparently so soon forgotten -- that fits the abuse scenario pretty darned well.

unclebucknasty 8y ago
When establishing Comcast service a few years back, I was told the package on offer included Streampix. "What's that?" I asked. "It's like Netflix, but better" was the rep's response. Her tone indicated she was pretty unconvinced herself. I repeated it and laughed, then she laughed. Neither of us said anything else, but it was clear that was her given line to parrot and that we both realized how ridiculous it was. But it is awful that they can literally make this so now...not with content, but by degrading reliability of competitors. And, at the end of the day, what are you going to do? If they're willing to weather a little bad PR, in many markets you would have no other choice.
ikeboy 8y ago
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/03/25/why-your-netflix-traffic-is-slow-and-why-the-open-internet-order-wont-necessarily-make-it-faster/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/03/25/why-your-netflix-tr... Your comment is simply inaccurate and misinformed. Rely on data, not anecdotes.
- mcguire 8y ago
  "Contrary to what many have been led to believe, there is currently no evidence to suggest that Comcast made an explicit decision to slow down streaming traffic; rather, the slowdown resulted from high volumes of streaming video, which congested Internet links between the video content and the users themselves. "Netflix claims that they were paying for transit to Comcast customers through their transit ISPs, and that they should not be responsible for upgrading the (congested) peering links between Comcast and the transit providers. The FCC declaration went so far as to claim that Comcast was intentionally letting peering links congest (see paragraph 29 of the declaration) to force Netflix to pay for direct connectivity. (Here is precisely where the confusion with net neutrality and paid prioritization comes into play, but this is not about paid prioritization, but rather about who should pay who for connectivity. More on that later.) "Comcast claims that Netflix was sending traffic at such high volumes as to intentionally congest the links between different transit ISPs and Comcast, essentially taking a page from Norton’s “peering playbook” and forcing Comcast and its peers (i.e., the transit providers, Cogent, Level 3, Tata, and others) to upgrade capacity one-by-one, before sending traffic down a different path, congesting that, and forcing an upgrade. Their position was that Netflix was sending more traffic through these transit providers than the transit providers could handle, and thus that Netflix or their transit providers should pay to connect to Comcast directly. Comcast also implies that certain transit providers such as Cogent are likely the source of congested paths, a claim that has been explored but not yet conclusively proved one way or the other, owing to the difficulty of locating these points of congestion (more on that in a future post). "The best technical solution (and what ultimately happened) is that Netflix and Comcast should interconnect directly. But, who should pay for that interconnection? Should Netflix pay Comcast, since Netflix depends on reaching its subscribers, many of whom are Comcast customers? Or, should Comcast pay Netflix, since Comcast subscribers would be unhappy with poor Netflix performance? This is where market leverage comes into play: Because most consumers do not have choice in broadband Internet providers, Comcast arguably (and, empirically speaking, as well) has more market leverage: They can afford to ask Netflix to pay for that direct link—a common Internet business relationship called paid peering—because they have more market power. This is exactly what happened, and once Netflix paid Comcast for the direct peering link, congestion was relieved and performance returned to normal." I have to suggest that the anecdote is spot on. Cui bono, and all that.
lousyd 8y ago
Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't your story demonstrate that the law was not necessary in that case? Since the problem was corrected without it? Or am I missing the point?
- acomjean 8y ago
  Netflix actually caved and paid comcast to get better speeds ("interconnects"). It wasn't the bad PR that forced the issue. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-is-paying-comcast-for-direct-connection-to-network-wsj-reports/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netfl... Speeds increased 65% after the payment. It was kind of a big deal at the time, since most of the time nobody paid for this. "Netflix has struck payment-free deals with Frontier, British Telecom, TDC, Clearwire, GVT, Telus, Bell Canada, Virgin, Cablevision, Google Fiber, Telmex, and RCN" https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after-netflix-pays-comcast-speeds-improve-65/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after...
  - whoopdedo 8y ago
    Netflix should make subscribers who use Comcast pay more. Why should people on other networks have to subsidize a Comcast tax?
    - MadWombat 8y ago
      Because Netflix is a business, not a charity. They are not accountable for their pricing. People are not "paying a Comcast tax", they are paying the service price Netflix established.

unclebucknasty 8y ago

When establishing Comcast service a few years back, I was told the package on offer included Streampix. "What's that?" I asked. "It's like Netflix, but better" was the rep's response. Her tone indicated she was pretty unconvinced herself. I repeated it and laughed, then she laughed. Neither of us said anything else, but it was clear that was her given line to parrot and that we both realized how ridiculous it was. But it is awful that they can literally make this so now...not with content, but by degrading reliability of competitors. And, at the end of the day, what are you going to do? If they're willing to weather a little bad PR, in many markets you would have no other choice.

ikeboy 8y ago

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/03/25/why-your-netflix-traffic-is-slow-and-why-the-open-internet-order-wont-necessarily-make-it-faster/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/03/25/why-your-netflix-tr... Your comment is simply inaccurate and misinformed. Rely on data, not anecdotes.

mcguire 8y ago
"Contrary to what many have been led to believe, there is currently no evidence to suggest that Comcast made an explicit decision to slow down streaming traffic; rather, the slowdown resulted from high volumes of streaming video, which congested Internet links between the video content and the users themselves. "Netflix claims that they were paying for transit to Comcast customers through their transit ISPs, and that they should not be responsible for upgrading the (congested) peering links between Comcast and the transit providers. The FCC declaration went so far as to claim that Comcast was intentionally letting peering links congest (see paragraph 29 of the declaration) to force Netflix to pay for direct connectivity. (Here is precisely where the confusion with net neutrality and paid prioritization comes into play, but this is not about paid prioritization, but rather about who should pay who for connectivity. More on that later.) "Comcast claims that Netflix was sending traffic at such high volumes as to intentionally congest the links between different transit ISPs and Comcast, essentially taking a page from Norton’s “peering playbook” and forcing Comcast and its peers (i.e., the transit providers, Cogent, Level 3, Tata, and others) to upgrade capacity one-by-one, before sending traffic down a different path, congesting that, and forcing an upgrade. Their position was that Netflix was sending more traffic through these transit providers than the transit providers could handle, and thus that Netflix or their transit providers should pay to connect to Comcast directly. Comcast also implies that certain transit providers such as Cogent are likely the source of congested paths, a claim that has been explored but not yet conclusively proved one way or the other, owing to the difficulty of locating these points of congestion (more on that in a future post). "The best technical solution (and what ultimately happened) is that Netflix and Comcast should interconnect directly. But, who should pay for that interconnection? Should Netflix pay Comcast, since Netflix depends on reaching its subscribers, many of whom are Comcast customers? Or, should Comcast pay Netflix, since Comcast subscribers would be unhappy with poor Netflix performance? This is where market leverage comes into play: Because most consumers do not have choice in broadband Internet providers, Comcast arguably (and, empirically speaking, as well) has more market leverage: They can afford to ask Netflix to pay for that direct link—a common Internet business relationship called paid peering—because they have more market power. This is exactly what happened, and once Netflix paid Comcast for the direct peering link, congestion was relieved and performance returned to normal." I have to suggest that the anecdote is spot on. Cui bono, and all that.

lousyd 8y ago

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't your story demonstrate that the law was not necessary in that case? Since the problem was corrected without it? Or am I missing the point?

acomjean 8y ago
Netflix actually caved and paid comcast to get better speeds ("interconnects"). It wasn't the bad PR that forced the issue. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-is-paying-comcast-for-direct-connection-to-network-wsj-reports/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netfl... Speeds increased 65% after the payment. It was kind of a big deal at the time, since most of the time nobody paid for this. "Netflix has struck payment-free deals with Frontier, British Telecom, TDC, Clearwire, GVT, Telus, Bell Canada, Virgin, Cablevision, Google Fiber, Telmex, and RCN" https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after-netflix-pays-comcast-speeds-improve-65/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after...
- whoopdedo 8y ago
  Netflix should make subscribers who use Comcast pay more. Why should people on other networks have to subsidize a Comcast tax?
  - MadWombat 8y ago
    Because Netflix is a business, not a charity. They are not accountable for their pricing. People are not "paying a Comcast tax", they are paying the service price Netflix established.