4 ms·

ISPs are neutral here, the problem is, once again, that Netflix uses a HUGE amount of traffic, and the normal routes (the ones everybody gets) get saturated. I

by rjvbk 8y ago

ISPs are neutral here, the problem is, once again, that Netflix uses a HUGE amount of traffic, and the normal routes (the ones everybody gets) get saturated. If they want "premium" routes for their MASSIVE traffic, they will have to pay to the ISPs. I think that's reasonable. Giving them premium routes for free would not be neutral, would it? ;)

reitanqild 8y ago
Netflix pay for their own uplinks. That is fair. They shouldn't pay for our downlinks, that we've already paid for. That would be double dipping or something by our isps.
- mimimihaha 8y ago
  I feel like this is a good explanation of the issue.
corobo 8y ago
Either their infrastructure supports what the customer is paying for or it doesn't. If the ISP is running crusty old routes they're slacking and customers should migrate away from them as soon as feasible. ISPs should provide connection to the internet for their customers in exchange for a monthly bill. How they do that isn't the customer's concern and it shouldn't be Netflix's concern. The only ISP Netflix should be paying is their own link to the internet (AWS last I heard) Side note, Netflix isn't using any traffic. They're not sending me a UHD video stream unsolicited. I'm using the traffic.
- rjvbk 8y ago
  >Side note, Netflix isn't using any traffic. They're not sending me a UHD video stream unsolicited. I'm using the traffic. Milk companies put their lorries in the highway to deliver their products. You're the one buying milk. Are you the one who's using the highways? If Netflix wants a premium highway let them pay for it. Otherwise they will have to use the normal highway, the one that's worked fine until Netflix decided to fill it with lorries.
  - scwoodal 8y ago
    The grocery store bought the milk so that’s why the truck is on the highway. The truck (Netflix) wouldn’t be there if the grocery store (customer) didn’t order the milk.
  - strogonoff 8y ago
    If we imagine Netflix traffic as milk trucks delivering milk B2C, the “downlink” road to a milk buyer’s house would likely be maintained by neighborhood home owners’ association, thus ultimately paid for by the consumer. Those highways between the farm and the neighborhood, though… Anyway, either the analogy breaks or it’s onto something!
  - corobo 8y ago
    In a less direct sense, yes. If there was no demand for milk in my area there would be no milk lorries sent to my area Sidebar: I do wish HN had a rule against these kinds of analogies as they do other reddit-esque puns and the likes. The internet is not like a milk truck, it's not like a series of tubes, it's like 1s and 0s being communicated across a worldwide mesh of cables of varying material under the control of varying entities We're all at least vaguely techy enough that we're on HN, we can understand at least the basics. Lets talk about what it is, not what it's like.
  - deno 8y ago
    Let’s break it down: BOB pays ALICE for a connection at fixed uplink/downlink parameters to the public collective of interconnected autonomous networks commonly referred to as INTERNET. BOB uses the service as advertised to connect to CAROL’s autonomous network. ALICE fails to adequately peer with CAROL’s autonomous network and calls it a feature. BOB can’t switch ISPs because ALICE has monopoly on the service where he lives. ALICE tries to muddy the waters with nonsensical milk lorry analogies that have nothing to do with fiber optic cables to maintain its monopoly and further leverage it to run protection racket on CAROL. Sounds about right? When BOB is paying ALICE for the service, he is implicitly paying for whatever “highway” connects his house and CAROL’s milk depots. Everything between the two points is ALICE’s responsibility. If ALICE doesn’t like that BOB mostly orders his milk from CAROL’s then she shouldn’t offer the service as supporting fixed amount of lorries per hour.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sitkack 8y ago
The customers of the ISP have paid to connect to the internet. Netflix isn't generating the traffic, the customers are, and if the ISP wants to serve the customers they need to provide bandwidth to the places they want to go. Shaking down the destination, because the ISP controls the customer is wrong on many levels.
zzzcpan 8y ago
Couple of megabits from time to time, not even every night, is not a HUGE or a MASSIVE traffic, neither it has to be "premium". It's very normal traffic, on the lower end even. It's just some ISPs are monopolies and want to abuse their position and extort money from anyone they can, despite the fact that customers pay them to literally provide access to those services.
inapis 8y ago
ISPs were or are double dipping. They actively started throttling Netflix even when there was no congestion or traffic only so that they could extort money out of Netflix. You could access YouTube, Vimeo or their own video-on-demand without any compromise in quality but Netflix was forced to a crawl. If Netflix wants to pay extra to deal with saturation they are more than welcome too but if ISPs are denying their subscribers access to a service, even when spare bandwidth was available and sitting unutilized then its time for pitchforks to come out
windexh8er 8y ago
Netflix rarely consumes Internet traffic as your statement assumes. Netflix has content caching at, pretty much, most legitimately sized ISP and peering points today. That means you're probably watching your content without leaving your ISPs network. The ISP pays pretty much nothing for transport (because Netflix provides them with a way to alleviate that) however the customer gets better service and quality of Netflix because the content is local. While this isn't always true neither is the thought that all traffic is heading back to Netflix HQ and saturating all of the Internet links in between.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  Then how is fast.com effective at all? It was created to show that ISPs were throttling Netflix, but if Netflix has boxes at peering points, this seems moot.
  - deno 8y ago
    They peer with Netflix for free then demand extra money to actually keep peering for free at proper capacity. They want money for connecting an extra cable to their router. It’s a protection racket pure and simple.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    I'd guess it indicates capacity if you try to watch something that isn't cached?
  - diab0lic 8y ago
    The speed test is running on said boxes at the peering points. It tests how fast your connection is to the open connect appliance. https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/building-fast-com-4857fe0f8adb https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/building-fast-com-4857fe...
    - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
      Ahh... ok, thanks. That makes a lot of sense.
manigandham 8y ago
What's the problem with routes getting saturated? The consumers are paying for bandwidth and if they're using it all for Netflix, that's their choice. The only problem is if the ISP can't actually deliver the bandwidth that they promised in exchange for taking the consumers money. That's called a scam.
notheguyouthink 8y ago
> ISPs are neutral here, the problem is, once again, that Netflix uses a HUGE amount of traffic, and the normal routes (the ones everybody gets) get saturated. What I don't get is, both Netflix and I pay for bandwidth. As far as consumer bandwidth (mine) is concerned, why should Comcast care if it's 1TB/month coming from a thousand sites or just one. I paid for the data, I paid for the bandwidth, give me my bandwidth. Likewise, Netflix paid for their own too, with whoever is their ISP. Conceptually the bandwidth has to be paid for, and I could see your argument if I only paid a portion of what it costs to transfer the data.. but that is a broken model if that's the way it is. I want to pay for data, and I shouldn't have to get Movies.com to pay Comcast to serve me movies. I paid Comcast for data, it doesn't matter who it's from. My data is my data. Is this wrong somehow to you? Honestly it's a strange argument from you, I have a hard time understanding. Like, if you run a website and I visit your website, do you think you should have to pay my ISP for data I'm downloading from your site? That's a bizarre system in my mind.

by rjvbk 8y ago

reitanqild 8y ago

Netflix pay for their own uplinks. That is fair. They shouldn't pay for our downlinks, that we've already paid for. That would be double dipping or something by our isps.

mimimihaha 8y ago
I feel like this is a good explanation of the issue.

corobo 8y ago

Either their infrastructure supports what the customer is paying for or it doesn't. If the ISP is running crusty old routes they're slacking and customers should migrate away from them as soon as feasible. ISPs should provide connection to the internet for their customers in exchange for a monthly bill. How they do that isn't the customer's concern and it shouldn't be Netflix's concern. The only ISP Netflix should be paying is their own link to the internet (AWS last I heard) Side note, Netflix isn't using any traffic. They're not sending me a UHD video stream unsolicited. I'm using the traffic.

rjvbk 8y ago
>Side note, Netflix isn't using any traffic. They're not sending me a UHD video stream unsolicited. I'm using the traffic. Milk companies put their lorries in the highway to deliver their products. You're the one buying milk. Are you the one who's using the highways? If Netflix wants a premium highway let them pay for it. Otherwise they will have to use the normal highway, the one that's worked fine until Netflix decided to fill it with lorries.
- scwoodal 8y ago
  The grocery store bought the milk so that’s why the truck is on the highway. The truck (Netflix) wouldn’t be there if the grocery store (customer) didn’t order the milk.
- strogonoff 8y ago
  If we imagine Netflix traffic as milk trucks delivering milk B2C, the “downlink” road to a milk buyer’s house would likely be maintained by neighborhood home owners’ association, thus ultimately paid for by the consumer. Those highways between the farm and the neighborhood, though… Anyway, either the analogy breaks or it’s onto something!
- corobo 8y ago
  In a less direct sense, yes. If there was no demand for milk in my area there would be no milk lorries sent to my area Sidebar: I do wish HN had a rule against these kinds of analogies as they do other reddit-esque puns and the likes. The internet is not like a milk truck, it's not like a series of tubes, it's like 1s and 0s being communicated across a worldwide mesh of cables of varying material under the control of varying entities We're all at least vaguely techy enough that we're on HN, we can understand at least the basics. Lets talk about what it is, not what it's like.
- deno 8y ago
  Let’s break it down: BOB pays ALICE for a connection at fixed uplink/downlink parameters to the public collective of interconnected autonomous networks commonly referred to as INTERNET. BOB uses the service as advertised to connect to CAROL’s autonomous network. ALICE fails to adequately peer with CAROL’s autonomous network and calls it a feature. BOB can’t switch ISPs because ALICE has monopoly on the service where he lives. ALICE tries to muddy the waters with nonsensical milk lorry analogies that have nothing to do with fiber optic cables to maintain its monopoly and further leverage it to run protection racket on CAROL. Sounds about right? When BOB is paying ALICE for the service, he is implicitly paying for whatever “highway” connects his house and CAROL’s milk depots. Everything between the two points is ALICE’s responsibility. If ALICE doesn’t like that BOB mostly orders his milk from CAROL’s then she shouldn’t offer the service as supporting fixed amount of lorries per hour.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sitkack 8y ago

The customers of the ISP have paid to connect to the internet. Netflix isn't generating the traffic, the customers are, and if the ISP wants to serve the customers they need to provide bandwidth to the places they want to go. Shaking down the destination, because the ISP controls the customer is wrong on many levels.

zzzcpan 8y ago

Couple of megabits from time to time, not even every night, is not a HUGE or a MASSIVE traffic, neither it has to be "premium". It's very normal traffic, on the lower end even. It's just some ISPs are monopolies and want to abuse their position and extort money from anyone they can, despite the fact that customers pay them to literally provide access to those services.

inapis 8y ago

ISPs were or are double dipping. They actively started throttling Netflix even when there was no congestion or traffic only so that they could extort money out of Netflix. You could access YouTube, Vimeo or their own video-on-demand without any compromise in quality but Netflix was forced to a crawl. If Netflix wants to pay extra to deal with saturation they are more than welcome too but if ISPs are denying their subscribers access to a service, even when spare bandwidth was available and sitting unutilized then its time for pitchforks to come out

windexh8er 8y ago

Netflix rarely consumes Internet traffic as your statement assumes. Netflix has content caching at, pretty much, most legitimately sized ISP and peering points today. That means you're probably watching your content without leaving your ISPs network. The ISP pays pretty much nothing for transport (because Netflix provides them with a way to alleviate that) however the customer gets better service and quality of Netflix because the content is local. While this isn't always true neither is the thought that all traffic is heading back to Netflix HQ and saturating all of the Internet links in between.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago
Then how is fast.com effective at all? It was created to show that ISPs were throttling Netflix, but if Netflix has boxes at peering points, this seems moot.
- deno 8y ago
  They peer with Netflix for free then demand extra money to actually keep peering for free at proper capacity. They want money for connecting an extra cable to their router. It’s a protection racket pure and simple.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  I'd guess it indicates capacity if you try to watch something that isn't cached?
- diab0lic 8y ago
  The speed test is running on said boxes at the peering points. It tests how fast your connection is to the open connect appliance. https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/building-fast-com-4857fe0f8adb https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/building-fast-com-4857fe...
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    Ahh... ok, thanks. That makes a lot of sense.

manigandham 8y ago

What's the problem with routes getting saturated? The consumers are paying for bandwidth and if they're using it all for Netflix, that's their choice. The only problem is if the ISP can't actually deliver the bandwidth that they promised in exchange for taking the consumers money. That's called a scam.

notheguyouthink 8y ago

> ISPs are neutral here, the problem is, once again, that Netflix uses a HUGE amount of traffic, and the normal routes (the ones everybody gets) get saturated. What I don't get is, both Netflix and I pay for bandwidth. As far as consumer bandwidth (mine) is concerned, why should Comcast care if it's 1TB/month coming from a thousand sites or just one. I paid for the data, I paid for the bandwidth, give me my bandwidth. Likewise, Netflix paid for their own too, with whoever is their ISP. Conceptually the bandwidth has to be paid for, and I could see your argument if I only paid a portion of what it costs to transfer the data.. but that is a broken model if that's the way it is. I want to pay for data, and I shouldn't have to get Movies.com to pay Comcast to serve me movies. I paid Comcast for data, it doesn't matter who it's from. My data is my data. Is this wrong somehow to you? Honestly it's a strange argument from you, I have a hard time understanding. Like, if you run a website and I visit your website, do you think you should have to pay my ISP for data I'm downloading from your site? That's a bizarre system in my mind.