4 ms·

This is hilariously wrong. Netflix is paying ISPs because they dumped their CDN providers and started doing it on their own. They did it because it was cheaper

by Touche 13y ago

This is hilariously wrong. Netflix is paying ISPs because they dumped their CDN providers and started doing it on their own. They did it because it was cheaper for Netflix to cut deals than to use a CDN (who, by the way, also pay ISPs). > imagine the plight of smaller services today and in the future. This is flat out a lie, smaller services uses CDNs.

skybrian 13y ago
Why shouldn't Netflix be their own CDN if they think they can do it better? Why should any CDN have to pay ISPs to deliver bandwidth that the ISP's customers already paid for?
- alxv 13y ago
  By that logic, why consumers should pay anything to ISPs? ISPs don't have obligations to sign free peering agreements to CDNs or other large network owners, like Netflix, if it isn't advantageous to them. Large network owners agree to peer without charges when it is mutually beneficial. That usually boils down to whether the traffic exchanged between the two networks will be roughly balanced and managed reliably. One of the issue here is that Netflix doesn't operate an Internet backbone. Therefore, ISPs can't use Netflix's network to exchange traffic across the wider Internet. So this leaves the ISPs two choices here: 1) Agree to a free peering agreement with Netflix and build more capacity in their network at the ISP's expense to support Netflix's egress traffic; 2) Request Netflix to sign a paid peering agreement to support the construction and maintenance of the needed extra network capacity. ISPs who opt for the first choice believe that improving their access to Netflix will make their customers happy and thus allow them grow their business. The other ISPs who opt for the latter choice believe, on the other hands, don't see the free peering as an investment; they want rather to extract more money from their existing customers. So, it is not that surprising to see the incumbent ISPs, who have locked-in their users already and killed-off most of the competition, going against free peering. That said, I just can't wait to see Google Fiber kick the behinds of these greedy fools.
  - wmf 13y ago
    Really ISPs have a choice between peering with Netflix and reaching Netflix over transit. Since most broadband ISPs would have to buy transit, peering with Netflix (at any price, even free) is a better deal.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Really ISPs have a choice between peering with Netflix and reaching Netflix over transit. Since most broadband ISPs would have to buy transit, peering with Netflix (at any price, even free) is a better deal. They have a third choice, which is "not reach Netflix at all". Which, for ISPs that are also selling streaming video services (e.g., pretty much all of the big ISPs, which tend also to be digital cable with "on demand" video streaming providers) with which Netflix competes, is a pretty attractive option.
  - coldpie 13y ago
    It's especially galling with Comcast throwing $45 billion at acquiring another company. You really couldn't afford to upgrade your infrastructure with $45 billion burning a hole in your pocket, Comcast? > That said, I just can't wait to see Google Fiber kick the behinds of these greedy fools. Hear hear.
  - rhino369 13y ago
    I think there is also a fairly strong argument that free peering with Netflix directly is a net neutrality violation. You are giving Netflix data a huge advantage over other video services. Netflix talks about the little guy, but the little guy doesn't get to just dump his traffic onto the ISP for free.
    - wmf 13y ago
      It's in Comcast's interest to peer with all large CDNs. Any player who isn't large enough to be a major CDN can outsource to one.
ZoF 13y ago
Okay... Your implied statement here is that it's OK for ISP's to charge CDN's/Netflix/anyone... Is that a statement that you agree with? Regardless of whether Netflix is portraying the situation with some bias(on their own blog who would have thought) this is in important issue that should get attention.
- cheald 13y ago
  Everyone that originates or terminates requests or responses on the internet pays for transport in one form or another.
notdonspaulding 13y ago
This situation has not been caused by an action of Netflix's, it has been caused by an inaction of the big ISPs. Interconnects are a boon to a distributed internet, and as Netflix points out in the post, ISPs routinely employ them - for free - in other situations. The main difference is that they typically can't extort the customers on the other end of the connection so easily; i.e. other ISPs and companies whose products don't visibly degrade when subjected to interconnect bottlenecks. > This is flat out a lie, smaller services uses CDNs. The reason Netflix is targeted here is not because they aren't using CDNs. It's because it's the first popular service that could easily be blackmailed in this way. The end result is that Netflix's cost have gone up in order to get access to the same 10Mbits/sec that their customer has already paid for. Those costs will be borne by Netflix (and its customers) and the ISP has effectively double-charged. Don't kid yourself by thinking the ISP won't turn that into a regular practice for any company that is successfully reaching its customers with a latency/bandwidth-sensitive service.
- dhimes 13y ago
  the ISP has effectively double-charged This is the crux. Remember when ATT started charging for receiving text messages as well as sending them?

by Touche 13y ago

skybrian 13y ago

Why shouldn't Netflix be their own CDN if they think they can do it better? Why should any CDN have to pay ISPs to deliver bandwidth that the ISP's customers already paid for?

alxv 13y ago
By that logic, why consumers should pay anything to ISPs? ISPs don't have obligations to sign free peering agreements to CDNs or other large network owners, like Netflix, if it isn't advantageous to them. Large network owners agree to peer without charges when it is mutually beneficial. That usually boils down to whether the traffic exchanged between the two networks will be roughly balanced and managed reliably. One of the issue here is that Netflix doesn't operate an Internet backbone. Therefore, ISPs can't use Netflix's network to exchange traffic across the wider Internet. So this leaves the ISPs two choices here: 1) Agree to a free peering agreement with Netflix and build more capacity in their network at the ISP's expense to support Netflix's egress traffic; 2) Request Netflix to sign a paid peering agreement to support the construction and maintenance of the needed extra network capacity. ISPs who opt for the first choice believe that improving their access to Netflix will make their customers happy and thus allow them grow their business. The other ISPs who opt for the latter choice believe, on the other hands, don't see the free peering as an investment; they want rather to extract more money from their existing customers. So, it is not that surprising to see the incumbent ISPs, who have locked-in their users already and killed-off most of the competition, going against free peering. That said, I just can't wait to see Google Fiber kick the behinds of these greedy fools.
- wmf 13y ago
  Really ISPs have a choice between peering with Netflix and reaching Netflix over transit. Since most broadband ISPs would have to buy transit, peering with Netflix (at any price, even free) is a better deal.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Really ISPs have a choice between peering with Netflix and reaching Netflix over transit. Since most broadband ISPs would have to buy transit, peering with Netflix (at any price, even free) is a better deal. They have a third choice, which is "not reach Netflix at all". Which, for ISPs that are also selling streaming video services (e.g., pretty much all of the big ISPs, which tend also to be digital cable with "on demand" video streaming providers) with which Netflix competes, is a pretty attractive option.
- coldpie 13y ago
  It's especially galling with Comcast throwing $45 billion at acquiring another company. You really couldn't afford to upgrade your infrastructure with $45 billion burning a hole in your pocket, Comcast? > That said, I just can't wait to see Google Fiber kick the behinds of these greedy fools. Hear hear.
- rhino369 13y ago
  I think there is also a fairly strong argument that free peering with Netflix directly is a net neutrality violation. You are giving Netflix data a huge advantage over other video services. Netflix talks about the little guy, but the little guy doesn't get to just dump his traffic onto the ISP for free.
  - wmf 13y ago
    It's in Comcast's interest to peer with all large CDNs. Any player who isn't large enough to be a major CDN can outsource to one.

ZoF 13y ago

Okay... Your implied statement here is that it's OK for ISP's to charge CDN's/Netflix/anyone... Is that a statement that you agree with? Regardless of whether Netflix is portraying the situation with some bias(on their own blog who would have thought) this is in important issue that should get attention.

cheald 13y ago
Everyone that originates or terminates requests or responses on the internet pays for transport in one form or another.

notdonspaulding 13y ago

This situation has not been caused by an action of Netflix's, it has been caused by an inaction of the big ISPs. Interconnects are a boon to a distributed internet, and as Netflix points out in the post, ISPs routinely employ them - for free - in other situations. The main difference is that they typically can't extort the customers on the other end of the connection so easily; i.e. other ISPs and companies whose products don't visibly degrade when subjected to interconnect bottlenecks. > This is flat out a lie, smaller services uses CDNs. The reason Netflix is targeted here is not because they aren't using CDNs. It's because it's the first popular service that could easily be blackmailed in this way. The end result is that Netflix's cost have gone up in order to get access to the same 10Mbits/sec that their customer has already paid for. Those costs will be borne by Netflix (and its customers) and the ISP has effectively double-charged. Don't kid yourself by thinking the ISP won't turn that into a regular practice for any company that is successfully reaching its customers with a latency/bandwidth-sensitive service.

dhimes 13y ago
the ISP has effectively double-charged This is the crux. Remember when ATT started charging for receiving text messages as well as sending them?