4 ms·

I remember debating with a guy I know about Net Neutrality leading up to this. He was a sales director at a company that ran network backbone and fiber lines.

by RajT88 3y ago

I remember debating with a guy I know about Net Neutrality leading up to this. He was a sales director at a company that ran network backbone and fiber lines. He was insistent that the Net Neutrality debate was dumb, because it was trying to negate the peering agreements that make the industry run. The way he told it, anyone with a big backbone chooses to invest in peering arrangements with other companies who also make similar arrangements. If you are pushing an undue amount of traffic relative to the other party, you invest more. His take was that Netflix was supporting Net Neutrality so they wouldn't have to invest more in their peering arrangements. Now - this is a guy who historically is almost always on the wrong side of history. I thought it an interesting talking point, but even now having had some exposure to the peering arrangements between (say) Microsoft and Akamai, I still don't know enough to be able to say whether this is even a valid talking point. I'm very sure this is just something he was told, and repeated ad nauseum. This seems like the right audience (since I wasn't posting here back then), to ask if there's any legitimacy to this talking point?

bombcar 3y ago
There’s something there - Netflix had just moved to a tier 2/3 provider and they weren’t peered well and Netflix was trying to get the big ISPs to peer instead of selling transit - peering for an almost entirely one way connection. The t1s weren’t having it. The moment Netflix setup caching servers in isp COs around the world they stopped caring about net neutrality. Strange.
- zamnos 3y ago
  Netflix couldn't know what the outcome was going to be, so they hedged by creating a technical solution to the problem. They still pay the ISPs, but for colo services instead of the net neutrality ransom. The problem with paying ransom is it'll just keep going up. Colo services could also keep going up, but it's much more constrained because there's an actual good/service being provided and not just paying money to change a firewall/QoS box rule.
- ShroudedNight 3y ago
  My understanding was that the retail ISP monopolies were refusing Netflix's caching servers unless Netflix agreed to pay 'value'-priced access contracts.
- esjeon 3y ago
  Caching can delay the net neutrality issue by NOT serving the contents from the first party. ISPs peering Netflix won't suffer the heavy traffic (thus no reason to charge tons of money), and ISPs that hosts caches can achieve higher QoS for their customers and also can possibly charge other peers who don't host caches. It's a win-win strategy.
fwlr 3y ago
Doesn’t seem like a dumb argument to me, although I don’t think net neutrality would have actually interrupted or replaced most of those peering arrangements in practice. If you’re pushing 15% of all internet traffic you’re going to end up peering, the best I can see net neutrality doing for Netflix is it sets the default payment to $0, giving them a better bargaining position going into any negotiation about peering arrangements, and probably gives them some legal protection against ISPs who might want to throttle Netflix traffic rather than agree to Netflix’s terms.
- callalex 3y ago
  Internet traffic is not “pushed” onto ISPs. The paying customers of ISPs request data from providers, and they pay those ISPs to receive and deliver that traffic.
  - fwlr 3y ago
    “If 15% of all internet traffic is requested from you by the paying customers of ISPs, you’re going to end up peering with the ISPs”
PeterStuer 3y ago
Is Netflix 'pushing' the traffic onto the ISP or are the ISP's customers asking for and pulling in that traffic though?
- RajT88 3y ago
  Depends which side you're on ;-)
srj 3y ago
If Netflix wasn't sharing costs in upgrading peering links I agree, but I never understood that to be the point of the debate. Instead it's that ISPs want to rate and charge differently for different providers / content types. This allows them to try and charge the customer more, but possibly more importantly to charge service providers for access to their customer base. The alternative is that you pay your ISP for X bytes and it doesn't matter what they are or who it's from.
- RajT88 3y ago
  My friend's argument was that the "Meta" i.e. what the debate was really about was about Netflix and others trying to avoid paying their fair share for peering arrangements. And that the stated reasoning behind the neutrality debate was null and void, because it wasn't what the debate was really about.
zamnos 3y ago
Sorta. It's that Netflix didn't want to pay more for something someone else was getting for cheaper. If I sell hot dogs for $3, but charge you $6 because you're you, wouldn't you raise objections? The problem with your friend's reasoning about peering arrangements is that net neutrality is about getting what you paid for. If I go to the store and buy eggs and the farm decides it hasn't gotten enough money for the eggs, then the next time I go to the store to buy eggs, after I pay the store and get home, the farm sends someone to my house and demands an extra $3 from me (and only me). Something about that just seems off to me.
- 101011 3y ago
  What if I charge you $6 because you order so many hot dogs that I have to find another distributor of raw hot dogs and hot dog buns? And charging $3 would mean that I'm taking a loss?
  - max47 3y ago
    That doesn’t really apply to this debate. Netflix isn’t sending data back and forth through the ISP’s network just for their own fun and their own benefit. They send the data because the ISP’s client specifically asked for it and is paying for that bandwidth. They are also likely paying for far less bandwidth than the low bitrate Netflix is using. TV streaming is also arguably one of the main reason why the end user bought a high speed internet connection in the place.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by RajT88 3y ago

bombcar 3y ago

There’s something there - Netflix had just moved to a tier 2/3 provider and they weren’t peered well and Netflix was trying to get the big ISPs to peer instead of selling transit - peering for an almost entirely one way connection. The t1s weren’t having it. The moment Netflix setup caching servers in isp COs around the world they stopped caring about net neutrality. Strange.

zamnos 3y ago
Netflix couldn't know what the outcome was going to be, so they hedged by creating a technical solution to the problem. They still pay the ISPs, but for colo services instead of the net neutrality ransom. The problem with paying ransom is it'll just keep going up. Colo services could also keep going up, but it's much more constrained because there's an actual good/service being provided and not just paying money to change a firewall/QoS box rule.
ShroudedNight 3y ago
My understanding was that the retail ISP monopolies were refusing Netflix's caching servers unless Netflix agreed to pay 'value'-priced access contracts.
esjeon 3y ago
Caching can delay the net neutrality issue by NOT serving the contents from the first party. ISPs peering Netflix won't suffer the heavy traffic (thus no reason to charge tons of money), and ISPs that hosts caches can achieve higher QoS for their customers and also can possibly charge other peers who don't host caches. It's a win-win strategy.

fwlr 3y ago

Doesn’t seem like a dumb argument to me, although I don’t think net neutrality would have actually interrupted or replaced most of those peering arrangements in practice. If you’re pushing 15% of all internet traffic you’re going to end up peering, the best I can see net neutrality doing for Netflix is it sets the default payment to $0, giving them a better bargaining position going into any negotiation about peering arrangements, and probably gives them some legal protection against ISPs who might want to throttle Netflix traffic rather than agree to Netflix’s terms.

callalex 3y ago
Internet traffic is not “pushed” onto ISPs. The paying customers of ISPs request data from providers, and they pay those ISPs to receive and deliver that traffic.
- fwlr 3y ago
  “If 15% of all internet traffic is requested from you by the paying customers of ISPs, you’re going to end up peering with the ISPs”

PeterStuer 3y ago

Is Netflix 'pushing' the traffic onto the ISP or are the ISP's customers asking for and pulling in that traffic though?

RajT88 3y ago
Depends which side you're on ;-)

srj 3y ago

If Netflix wasn't sharing costs in upgrading peering links I agree, but I never understood that to be the point of the debate. Instead it's that ISPs want to rate and charge differently for different providers / content types. This allows them to try and charge the customer more, but possibly more importantly to charge service providers for access to their customer base. The alternative is that you pay your ISP for X bytes and it doesn't matter what they are or who it's from.

RajT88 3y ago
My friend's argument was that the "Meta" i.e. what the debate was really about was about Netflix and others trying to avoid paying their fair share for peering arrangements. And that the stated reasoning behind the neutrality debate was null and void, because it wasn't what the debate was really about.

zamnos 3y ago

Sorta. It's that Netflix didn't want to pay more for something someone else was getting for cheaper. If I sell hot dogs for $3, but charge you $6 because you're you, wouldn't you raise objections? The problem with your friend's reasoning about peering arrangements is that net neutrality is about getting what you paid for. If I go to the store and buy eggs and the farm decides it hasn't gotten enough money for the eggs, then the next time I go to the store to buy eggs, after I pay the store and get home, the farm sends someone to my house and demands an extra $3 from me (and only me). Something about that just seems off to me.

101011 3y ago
What if I charge you $6 because you order so many hot dogs that I have to find another distributor of raw hot dogs and hot dog buns? And charging $3 would mean that I'm taking a loss?
- max47 3y ago
  That doesn’t really apply to this debate. Netflix isn’t sending data back and forth through the ISP’s network just for their own fun and their own benefit. They send the data because the ISP’s client specifically asked for it and is paying for that bandwidth. They are also likely paying for far less bandwidth than the low bitrate Netflix is using. TV streaming is also arguably one of the main reason why the end user bought a high speed internet connection in the place.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]