5 ms·

> Netflix using too much bandwidth on an ISPs network Netflix doesn't use any ISP's bandwidth without a colocation agreement. The ISP customers use the bandwi

> Netflix using too much bandwidth on an ISPs network Netflix doesn't use any ISP's bandwidth without a colocation agreement. The ISP customers use the bandwidth they have already paid for. If you're going to sell IP services you have to deliver those services honestly and fairly.

yesco 2y ago
I fully agree with you here, but people that don't agree still exist despite how obviously wrong they may seem to us.
rtkwe 2y ago
That's always confused me about that argument.. They are getting paid, by their customers!
- trhway 2y ago
  And they are paid for the common carrier service. If they want to be able to slow down some sites - basically it is an editorial action by making some content less available or even de-facto non-available - they should lose the common carrier status with all the consequences of it.
- Yeul 2y ago
  Seems to me American ISPs have a lot of political power. Not only do they want to extort money they also don't want to upgrade their infrastructure to give the service that the consumer wants.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    They're quite powerful and get tons of grant money to extend their networks and provide service they never actually provide.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    They don't want to upgrade their infrastructure to give the service that the consumer paid for and they themselves advertise.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  They're paid but what you pay is based on oversubscription, everyone not using their connection at the same time, as building a network to support that would be much more costly.
  - adriancr 2y ago
    Oversubscription is an ISP trick to make more money. People do pay for a certain bandwidth. They should be able to get it. Same thing with overbooking on airplanes. You paid for a seat you should be able to use it. Your argument wouldn't work there either.
    - Hikikomori 2y ago
      Its a cornerstone of building cost efficient networks. People pay for a certain sized pipe, what they pay also covers the rest of the ISPs networks and costs. With no oversubscription the ISP would need maybe 20-30x more infrastructure, do you think it would have an impact on what you pay? Not sure why I have to say this, but, networks are not airplanes.
      - rockskon 2y ago
        Utter nonsense. Network tech hasvimproved by orders of magnitude over the past decade to let ISPs transmit more data than ever for cheaper than ever. Oversubscription is not the cost-restrictive mandate it once was.
        Hikikomori 2y ago
        And last mile access didn't improve? Not oversubscribing is a cost multiplier at every level. 1 million 1 Gbit customers in a city is going to need 1000 100Gbit connections out of that city and the same for transit, and that will have no impact on pricing? And everything is on average used at 1% of capacity.
        michaelt 2y ago
do_not_redeem 2y ago
Indeed. This situation reminds me of when SMS was new, where you had to pay 25¢ to send a text, and the recipient had to pay 25¢ to receive the text. The ISPs want to double dip, get paid twice for the same data like cell phone companies were doing in the 90s.
- _blk 2y ago
  Not necessarily since you pay for wireless connectivity. RX/TX doesn't matter. Recipient could be on a different network too. You want a text, you cover the costs. Banks still charge me on both ends for int'l wires. Now I personally agree with you and not with the reasoning I presented above but it's still an argument.
kortilla 2y ago
The problem with this argument is that you end up in a scenario where an ISP makes an inadequately provisioned peering path (either through an IXP fabric or transit) to Netflix that just runs at saturation. Customers still get plenty of bandwidth to everything else and Netflix effectively ends up capped. This happened with a major cable ISP and Netflix already. You’ll quickly find out that “bandwidth the customers paid for” doesn’t mean nearly as much as you think it does because you can have excess in the last mile and terrible AS-to-AS connectivity.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  There is no excuse for inadequately provisioning the backend. They know what their customers want to consume. It isn't 99% text anymore. If I download 1TB from 1000 servers should the ISP have any claim to charge them a toll? If I download 1TB from a single server do they now get to impose a toll?
  - adamsb6 2y ago
    The excuse would be that it's not free and the revenue from lost customers is less than the cost of upgrading the peering points.
    - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
      The money that funds everything on the Internet comes from the end users who pay to access. The ISPs and all middlemen take from that pool of cash. If I've been sold a service to an open network I need to be delivered that service. The minutia of backhaul access is irrelevant. Their business doesn't exist without people and businesses paying for access. What this arrangement does is limit revenue growth which is why the financial schemers want to double dip with their extortionate tolling on entities that already pay. They see what the cable operators get away with on their closed video distribution networks negotiating for access and want to replicate the same on the Internet.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    There is no toll involved here, this is a limited 100gbps interconnect. If an ISP over-provisions these too far, they are wasting money and will not be competitive. >There is no excuse for inadequately provisioning the backend. You don’t know what you’re talking about. When this happened was when Netflix exploded in popularity. If I’m running an ISP in Kansas and a service explodes in popularity that is hosted exclusively out of England and my transit provider has saturated peering with the undersea route, it’s not obvious who is responsible for picking up the bill there. Transit isn’t full line rate to anywhere on earth and suggesting otherwise will get you laughed out of any room with network engineers.
tempodox 2y ago
And how is it reasonable to charge different costs for that same bandwidth depending on what I'm using it for?
Hikikomori 2y ago
Because the price you pay doesn't account for everyone using their connection at the same time, if this was the case you would need to pay a lot more. ISPs can either increase the price you pay directly or try to get that money elsewhere. Doesn't really matter if you pay for this to your ISP or to them via Netflix. The real problem is lack of competition and insane profits of US ISPs. Where I live its common for the local municipality to build out fiber and run their own ISP that lets other ISPs connect to their network and sell access. In that case part of my cost goes to the local ISP (which isn't profit driven) and the Internet providing ISPs can compete on price.
- michaelt 2y ago
  > Doesn't really matter if you pay for this to your ISP or to them via Netflix. Of course it matters. If my ISP demands an extra $1 from me, I can move to a different ISP. If my ISP demands an extra $1 from Netflix, Netflix can't move me to a different ISP. That's pretty important, as our whole economy is built on the assumption that raising prices lowers demand.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    And when all other ISPs charge $1 extra? Most people cannot choose between different ISPs without moving anyway.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      If only there were some sort of legislation designed to reign in monopolies, duopolies, collusion, and business practices that prevent competition :) You know who doesn't have a monopoly allowing them to charge whatever they like? Netflix.
      - Hikikomori 2y ago
        Based on US ISP profits I'd say there is practically no regulation and they even split up the market so there's no competition so most consumers only have one choice. Netflix competes with all the other streaming services no? If they increase the price too much people will stop subscribing. Or is your argument that they and other content owners should be forced to sell their content to all other streaming services?

yesco 2y ago

I fully agree with you here, but people that don't agree still exist despite how obviously wrong they may seem to us.

rtkwe 2y ago

That's always confused me about that argument.. They are getting paid, by their customers!

trhway 2y ago
And they are paid for the common carrier service. If they want to be able to slow down some sites - basically it is an editorial action by making some content less available or even de-facto non-available - they should lose the common carrier status with all the consequences of it.
Yeul 2y ago
Seems to me American ISPs have a lot of political power. Not only do they want to extort money they also don't want to upgrade their infrastructure to give the service that the consumer wants.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  They're quite powerful and get tons of grant money to extend their networks and provide service they never actually provide.
- autoexec 2y ago
  They don't want to upgrade their infrastructure to give the service that the consumer paid for and they themselves advertise.
Hikikomori 2y ago
They're paid but what you pay is based on oversubscription, everyone not using their connection at the same time, as building a network to support that would be much more costly.
- adriancr 2y ago
  Oversubscription is an ISP trick to make more money. People do pay for a certain bandwidth. They should be able to get it. Same thing with overbooking on airplanes. You paid for a seat you should be able to use it. Your argument wouldn't work there either.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    Its a cornerstone of building cost efficient networks. People pay for a certain sized pipe, what they pay also covers the rest of the ISPs networks and costs. With no oversubscription the ISP would need maybe 20-30x more infrastructure, do you think it would have an impact on what you pay? Not sure why I have to say this, but, networks are not airplanes.
    - rockskon 2y ago
      Utter nonsense. Network tech hasvimproved by orders of magnitude over the past decade to let ISPs transmit more data than ever for cheaper than ever. Oversubscription is not the cost-restrictive mandate it once was.
      - Hikikomori 2y ago
        And last mile access didn't improve? Not oversubscribing is a cost multiplier at every level. 1 million 1 Gbit customers in a city is going to need 1000 100Gbit connections out of that city and the same for transit, and that will have no impact on pricing? And everything is on average used at 1% of capacity.
        michaelt 2y ago

do_not_redeem 2y ago

Indeed. This situation reminds me of when SMS was new, where you had to pay 25¢ to send a text, and the recipient had to pay 25¢ to receive the text. The ISPs want to double dip, get paid twice for the same data like cell phone companies were doing in the 90s.

_blk 2y ago
Not necessarily since you pay for wireless connectivity. RX/TX doesn't matter. Recipient could be on a different network too. You want a text, you cover the costs. Banks still charge me on both ends for int'l wires. Now I personally agree with you and not with the reasoning I presented above but it's still an argument.

kortilla 2y ago

The problem with this argument is that you end up in a scenario where an ISP makes an inadequately provisioned peering path (either through an IXP fabric or transit) to Netflix that just runs at saturation. Customers still get plenty of bandwidth to everything else and Netflix effectively ends up capped. This happened with a major cable ISP and Netflix already. You’ll quickly find out that “bandwidth the customers paid for” doesn’t mean nearly as much as you think it does because you can have excess in the last mile and terrible AS-to-AS connectivity.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
There is no excuse for inadequately provisioning the backend. They know what their customers want to consume. It isn't 99% text anymore. If I download 1TB from 1000 servers should the ISP have any claim to charge them a toll? If I download 1TB from a single server do they now get to impose a toll?
- adamsb6 2y ago
  The excuse would be that it's not free and the revenue from lost customers is less than the cost of upgrading the peering points.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    The money that funds everything on the Internet comes from the end users who pay to access. The ISPs and all middlemen take from that pool of cash. If I've been sold a service to an open network I need to be delivered that service. The minutia of backhaul access is irrelevant. Their business doesn't exist without people and businesses paying for access. What this arrangement does is limit revenue growth which is why the financial schemers want to double dip with their extortionate tolling on entities that already pay. They see what the cable operators get away with on their closed video distribution networks negotiating for access and want to replicate the same on the Internet.
- kortilla 2y ago
  There is no toll involved here, this is a limited 100gbps interconnect. If an ISP over-provisions these too far, they are wasting money and will not be competitive. >There is no excuse for inadequately provisioning the backend. You don’t know what you’re talking about. When this happened was when Netflix exploded in popularity. If I’m running an ISP in Kansas and a service explodes in popularity that is hosted exclusively out of England and my transit provider has saturated peering with the undersea route, it’s not obvious who is responsible for picking up the bill there. Transit isn’t full line rate to anywhere on earth and suggesting otherwise will get you laughed out of any room with network engineers.

tempodox 2y ago

And how is it reasonable to charge different costs for that same bandwidth depending on what I'm using it for?

Hikikomori 2y ago

Because the price you pay doesn't account for everyone using their connection at the same time, if this was the case you would need to pay a lot more. ISPs can either increase the price you pay directly or try to get that money elsewhere. Doesn't really matter if you pay for this to your ISP or to them via Netflix. The real problem is lack of competition and insane profits of US ISPs. Where I live its common for the local municipality to build out fiber and run their own ISP that lets other ISPs connect to their network and sell access. In that case part of my cost goes to the local ISP (which isn't profit driven) and the Internet providing ISPs can compete on price.

michaelt 2y ago
> Doesn't really matter if you pay for this to your ISP or to them via Netflix. Of course it matters. If my ISP demands an extra $1 from me, I can move to a different ISP. If my ISP demands an extra $1 from Netflix, Netflix can't move me to a different ISP. That's pretty important, as our whole economy is built on the assumption that raising prices lowers demand.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  And when all other ISPs charge $1 extra? Most people cannot choose between different ISPs without moving anyway.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    If only there were some sort of legislation designed to reign in monopolies, duopolies, collusion, and business practices that prevent competition :) You know who doesn't have a monopoly allowing them to charge whatever they like? Netflix.
    - Hikikomori 2y ago
      Based on US ISP profits I'd say there is practically no regulation and they even split up the market so there's no competition so most consumers only have one choice. Netflix competes with all the other streaming services no? If they increase the price too much people will stop subscribing. Or is your argument that they and other content owners should be forced to sell their content to all other streaming services?