5 ms·

This would make sense but for one point. The graph of service quality spiked as soon as Netflix began paying Comcast. If they're weren't throttling then how c

by knappe 12y ago

This would make sense but for one point. The graph of service quality spiked as soon as Netflix began paying Comcast. If they're weren't throttling then how could such a spike be possible? You can't see those kind of performance gains by throwing a ton of hardware at it. You couldn't even provision the amount of hardware needed to see those gains in that short of a time frame (less than one day by the chart).

dangrossman 12y ago
It's not a question of hardware but routing. The deal cut out the middle-man between Netflix's and Comcast's networks, Cogent. Because Comcast and Cogent were in a constant feud over their peering agreements (Comcast wanting Cogent to pay more to transit all that Netflix data), service through that link was pretty much at capacity and slowly degrading the Netflix experience for Comcast customers. The two networks are directly connected now, which eliminates that bottleneck. That's why performance spiked. There wasn't a capacity issue on either side of that Cogent link; Netflix is willing to pay for its bits, and Comcast's network has adequate capacity to deliver them. This routing change actually occurred two days before the deal was announced; you could see through a traceroute already that the route between Netflix and Comcast had shortened and no longer went through Cogent. Courtesy Ars Technica on February 21, two days before WSJ reported the deal: http://i.imgur.com/pZPVTeR.png http://i.imgur.com/pZPVTeR.png
- tomp 12y ago
  But this still doesn't explain why Netflix is paying Comcast, not the other way around, or, even better, with noone paying anyone. This clearly shows that Comcast had an upper hand in the negotiations, probably because of its monopolistic position.
  - dangrossman 12y ago
    All internet services pay for their bandwidth, they don't get paid to be online. Usually that means paying a hosting company, which pays a data center, which pays some transit provider like Cogent or Level 3 to get onto the internet. Netflix was paying Cogent to link it to the internet. Now Netflix's servers are directly linked to Comcast, so Comcast is connecting it to the internet [ed: to Comcast's customers], and that's who they're paying instead. Why would they want to pay Comcast instead of Cogent? Because Comcast's fight with Cogent was resulting in poor performance for Netflix customers. They had the option of waiting for it to get bad enough that one side or the other gave in on the negotiations and increased capacity, meanwhile losing customers frustrated with buffering at peak hours, or choosing an alternate route to get their bits to those customers. It also nicely sets up barriers for entry to new video streaming services, which is something maturing companies tend to do. Netflix has grown big enough to buy transit directly from ISPs instead of through middle-men like Cogent, while startups don't have the capital for that.
    - smw 12y ago
      Netflix was paying Cogent to link it to the internet. Now Netflix's servers are directly linked to Comcast, so Comcast is connecting it to the internet, and that's who they're paying instead. No, Netflix is paying Comcast to connect them to only Comcast's customers, not the Internet. Suggesting that they're paying Comcast for transit is disingenuous.
    - srj 12y ago
      All internet services pay transit providers but they don't typically pay last mile networks for access to their subscribers. Comcast is able to fight with Cogent while their own customer's connectivity suffers precisely because the customers often don't have an alternative ISP. Netflix argues that if the TWC merger proceeds the situation will get even worse.
  - cheald 12y ago
    No, what is shows is that it was going to be more expensive for Netflix to buy market-rate transit through another provider than to peer directly with Comcast. (Or Netflix is playing the long game here and taking an unnecessary financial hit by peering with Comcast to put them in a favorable PR position, but I think that's less likely.) Cogent's thing is selling massively cut-rate transit. They've been involved in constant peering disputes over their method of doing so since at least 2002. This isn't new for them - Netflix is just big enough that people really took notice this time.
- icambron 12y ago
  > Comcast wanting Cogent to pay more to transit all that Netflix data That doesn't make sense to me. Comcast's customer isn't Cogent; Comcast's customer is the end user who sends them a check every month for access to the internet, regardless of where it comes from. If Cogent is being paid by Netflix on the other side, then Cogent and Comcast are exactly aligned (each wanting to deliver the Netflix packets because their respective customers are paying them to) and should peer without any money changing hands. If Comcast wants Cogent to pay it so that Comcast's own subscribers can get access to Cogent's customers' content, then they're being shady.
  - Touche 12y ago
    > If Cogent is being paid by Netflix on the other side, then Cogent and Comcast are exactly aligned (each wanting to deliver the Netflix packets because their respective customers are paying them to) and should peer without any money changing hands. Should Comcast cache my personal website for free so that it's super fast half way across the country? Or am I responsible for making my website faster (by using CDNs and such)? If it's the latter, why should Netflix not have the same experience I have?
    - icambron 12y ago
      Your question confuses me. If your website is cached on a CDN, Comcast users still have to connect to the network that hosts that CDN, and Comcast accomplishes that by using a peering or transit relationship. The CDN won't magically speed up Comcast's network, which is still responsible for getting the content to people's homes. Netflix is already making its website faster by paying Cogent a lot of money to deliver its data to the ISPs and by (clears throat) using and even building its own [1] CDN. Where Comcast comes in is delivering that content to its customers, who, again, pay it to do exactly that. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/06/05/netflix-shifts-traffic-to-its-own-cdn-akamai-limelight-shrs-hit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/06/05/netflix-sh...
      - Touche 12y ago
        Yes, and others in this thread believe Netflix shouldn't have to pay to peer with Comcast. What I'm saying is, I too want to peer with Comcast for free. Do you support this as well, or just Netflix?

by knappe 12y ago

dangrossman 12y ago

It's not a question of hardware but routing. The deal cut out the middle-man between Netflix's and Comcast's networks, Cogent. Because Comcast and Cogent were in a constant feud over their peering agreements (Comcast wanting Cogent to pay more to transit all that Netflix data), service through that link was pretty much at capacity and slowly degrading the Netflix experience for Comcast customers. The two networks are directly connected now, which eliminates that bottleneck. That's why performance spiked. There wasn't a capacity issue on either side of that Cogent link; Netflix is willing to pay for its bits, and Comcast's network has adequate capacity to deliver them. This routing change actually occurred two days before the deal was announced; you could see through a traceroute already that the route between Netflix and Comcast had shortened and no longer went through Cogent. Courtesy Ars Technica on February 21, two days before WSJ reported the deal: http://i.imgur.com/pZPVTeR.png http://i.imgur.com/pZPVTeR.png

tomp 12y ago
But this still doesn't explain why Netflix is paying Comcast, not the other way around, or, even better, with noone paying anyone. This clearly shows that Comcast had an upper hand in the negotiations, probably because of its monopolistic position.
- dangrossman 12y ago
  All internet services pay for their bandwidth, they don't get paid to be online. Usually that means paying a hosting company, which pays a data center, which pays some transit provider like Cogent or Level 3 to get onto the internet. Netflix was paying Cogent to link it to the internet. Now Netflix's servers are directly linked to Comcast, so Comcast is connecting it to the internet [ed: to Comcast's customers], and that's who they're paying instead. Why would they want to pay Comcast instead of Cogent? Because Comcast's fight with Cogent was resulting in poor performance for Netflix customers. They had the option of waiting for it to get bad enough that one side or the other gave in on the negotiations and increased capacity, meanwhile losing customers frustrated with buffering at peak hours, or choosing an alternate route to get their bits to those customers. It also nicely sets up barriers for entry to new video streaming services, which is something maturing companies tend to do. Netflix has grown big enough to buy transit directly from ISPs instead of through middle-men like Cogent, while startups don't have the capital for that.
  - smw 12y ago
    Netflix was paying Cogent to link it to the internet. Now Netflix's servers are directly linked to Comcast, so Comcast is connecting it to the internet, and that's who they're paying instead. No, Netflix is paying Comcast to connect them to only Comcast's customers, not the Internet. Suggesting that they're paying Comcast for transit is disingenuous.
  - srj 12y ago
    All internet services pay transit providers but they don't typically pay last mile networks for access to their subscribers. Comcast is able to fight with Cogent while their own customer's connectivity suffers precisely because the customers often don't have an alternative ISP. Netflix argues that if the TWC merger proceeds the situation will get even worse.
- cheald 12y ago
  No, what is shows is that it was going to be more expensive for Netflix to buy market-rate transit through another provider than to peer directly with Comcast. (Or Netflix is playing the long game here and taking an unnecessary financial hit by peering with Comcast to put them in a favorable PR position, but I think that's less likely.) Cogent's thing is selling massively cut-rate transit. They've been involved in constant peering disputes over their method of doing so since at least 2002. This isn't new for them - Netflix is just big enough that people really took notice this time.
icambron 12y ago
> Comcast wanting Cogent to pay more to transit all that Netflix data That doesn't make sense to me. Comcast's customer isn't Cogent; Comcast's customer is the end user who sends them a check every month for access to the internet, regardless of where it comes from. If Cogent is being paid by Netflix on the other side, then Cogent and Comcast are exactly aligned (each wanting to deliver the Netflix packets because their respective customers are paying them to) and should peer without any money changing hands. If Comcast wants Cogent to pay it so that Comcast's own subscribers can get access to Cogent's customers' content, then they're being shady.
- Touche 12y ago
  > If Cogent is being paid by Netflix on the other side, then Cogent and Comcast are exactly aligned (each wanting to deliver the Netflix packets because their respective customers are paying them to) and should peer without any money changing hands. Should Comcast cache my personal website for free so that it's super fast half way across the country? Or am I responsible for making my website faster (by using CDNs and such)? If it's the latter, why should Netflix not have the same experience I have?
  - icambron 12y ago
    Your question confuses me. If your website is cached on a CDN, Comcast users still have to connect to the network that hosts that CDN, and Comcast accomplishes that by using a peering or transit relationship. The CDN won't magically speed up Comcast's network, which is still responsible for getting the content to people's homes. Netflix is already making its website faster by paying Cogent a lot of money to deliver its data to the ISPs and by (clears throat) using and even building its own [1] CDN. Where Comcast comes in is delivering that content to its customers, who, again, pay it to do exactly that. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/06/05/netflix-shifts-traffic-to-its-own-cdn-akamai-limelight-shrs-hit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/06/05/netflix-sh...
    - Touche 12y ago
      Yes, and others in this thread believe Netflix shouldn't have to pay to peer with Comcast. What I'm saying is, I too want to peer with Comcast for free. Do you support this as well, or just Netflix?