5 ms·

CDNs are essentially identical (technologically and economically) to what Netflix bought from Comcast: http://clipperhouse.com/2014/05/07/what-netflix-bought-fr

CDNs are essentially identical (technologically and economically) to what Netflix bought from Comcast: http://clipperhouse.com/2014/05/07/what-netflix-bought-from-comcast-is-a-cdn/ http://clipperhouse.com/2014/05/07/what-netflix-bought-from-... To my mind, I can’t imagine a rule that describes a fast lane that doesn’t also describe a CDN.

moultano 12y ago
CDNs increase the overall capacity of the network by caching content closer to its destination. This benefits everyone, even the traffic that is not cached by the CDN because it reduces congestion for everyone. The behavior we are worried about is zero sum (where some packets get prioritized and others lose out), or even negative sum (where some packets get held for ransom.)
- mwsherman 12y ago
  That’s true, and it’s also true when Netflix buys a dedicated circuit to Comcast. Their traffic is no longer going over the other circuits. Not saying it’s the right thing to do, but that it’s functionally the same. It’s also functionally the same to say that any traffic not on the CDN is in a slow lane or being held ransom, in the sense that it will be congested until the publisher pays.
  - davorak 12y ago
    No, as far as I can tell the incentives in the two scenarios are very different. The transparence on what is being payed for and why some sites are fast and some are slow is not the same for Comcast's subscribes in the two scenarios either.
  - pdonis 12y ago
    > It’s also functionally the same to say that any traffic not on the CDN is in a slow lane or being held ransom You're confusing routes with endpoints. CDNs are endpoints--multiple endpoints containing the same data so that there is a much higher probability of having an endpoint close to any given user. The owner of the data has to do all the work of getting multiple copies of the data placed at all those endpoints, making sure they're all in sync, etc. But the data traveling from endpoint to endpoint--from the nearest CDN node to the user--is not privileged over any other data. What the net neutrality debate is about is the ISPs wanting to control routes--i.e., to be able to say that some data traveling over a given route from one endpoint to another endpoint gets to travel faster than other data traveling over the same route. CDNs don't do that. What Netflix bought from Comcast is sort of in between. It's like a CDN in that Netflix still has to do the work of placing multiple copies of their content at different endpoints in different locations; but it's also like the ISP route control scheme in that Netflix' data gets a privileged route from their endpoints to Comcast users, a route that non-Netflix data from endpoints that are similarly situated does not get, because non-Netflix data can't travel through the special connection points that Netflix now has with Comcast. Normal CDNs don't do that either.
    - mwsherman 12y ago
      A CDN is a route, is my contention. Its value is being closer to the user. CDNs are a good thing. But they are networks like any other, the difference being that the nodes are smart enough for to re-request data they already have. CDN nodes should be understood as caching routers. Being closer to the user – the CDN’s value – rests in having a better position vis-à-vis the last-mile network. A better position vis-à-vis the last-mile network is what Netflix bought.
      - pdonis 12y ago
        > A CDN is a route, is my contention. Its value is being closer to the user. Being an endpoint that is closer to the user is not the same as being a route between that endpoint (or any other endpoint) and the user. > CDN nodes should be understood as caching routers. In some respects, yes. But in other important respects, no. For example, CDN nodes do not route traffic that does not have that node as either a source or a destination. The fact that the content at that node ultimately comes from another source does not change that; it simply means that some of the traffic to and from the CDN node is to and from the ultimate source of the content. It's still not at all the same as routing traffic to and from arbitrary endpoints. > Being closer to the user – the CDN’s value – rests in having a better position vis-à-vis the last-mile network. A better position vis-à-vis the last-mile network is what Netflix bought. You're conflating two different ways of taking a "position" in the network. A CDN takes advantage of the existing network and the existing routes to place copies of content closer to users. It can only use the existing "positions" in the network, not create new ones. The Netflix deal created a new privileged route that didn't exist before, for Netflix content going to Comcast users only. So the "position" Netflix traffic is now in with respect to Comcast users didn't even exist before the deal.
        mwsherman 12y ago
        A new CDN node is a new privileged route. An existing CDN node is not a new privileged route. > CDN nodes do not route traffic that does not have that node as either a source or a destination. Correct. That is true of any router. Netflix did buy a new route, replacing the one they were previously buying from Cogent.
natdempk 12y ago
Not quite, this blog post from Netflix highlights a couple key differences in their case: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.html http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.h... > Transit networks like Level3, XO, Cogent and Tata perform two important services: (1) they carry traffic over long distances and (2) they provide access to every network on the global Internet. When Netflix connects directly to the Comcast network, Comcast is not providing either of the services typically provided by transit networks.
chc 12y ago
The bright and shining difference is that a CDN does not have a contract with the end user, and consequently doesn't connect directly to them. When we talk about a "fast lane" (or more accurately a "slow lane"), what we essentially mean is an ISP holding access to its users hostage. This is the opposite of how a CDN works, because those are paid by the provider to speed up access to its data, rather than being paid by the consumer for access to the provider's data. Basically, what is proposed here is preventing an ISP (which is already a recognizable category) from starting a CDN business — a very bad one, since it only delivers content to itself — and artificially slowing down non-CDN traffic that has already been paid for on the other end in order to prop up its CDN business.
stcredzero 12y ago
Something is going on here, such that the market isn't working. Otherwise, Comcast et al would be buying CDNs and vertically integrating to increase profits. But with our current system, it's more cost effective to lobby your way into bigger profits.
ColinDabritz 12y ago
The difference to me is that CDNs increase the availability of content to everyone. If CDNs did not exist, the content would still be available. Comcast is talking about "not decreasing" the availability of content. Some businesses can afford to pay to use already-paid-for infrastructure. Others are out of luck, and their content is not fully accessible. If Comcast did not exist, current users would not be able to request content, but the market could provide a solution in an alternate ISP. With Comcast the market cannot provide a solution, because it is actively being suppressed by Comcast.
- Yardlink 12y ago
  There isn't really a difference between "increasing" and "not decreasing". Some of these debates have been about ISPs not investing in infrastructure when they otherwise might have. The market can still provide a solution with the Comcast payments. That would be customers wanting fast everything don't use Comcast. If there's no competition for those customers then that's the real problem - a monopoly - not what tricks the monopoly uses to take advantage of people.

moultano 12y ago

CDNs increase the overall capacity of the network by caching content closer to its destination. This benefits everyone, even the traffic that is not cached by the CDN because it reduces congestion for everyone. The behavior we are worried about is zero sum (where some packets get prioritized and others lose out), or even negative sum (where some packets get held for ransom.)

mwsherman 12y ago
That’s true, and it’s also true when Netflix buys a dedicated circuit to Comcast. Their traffic is no longer going over the other circuits. Not saying it’s the right thing to do, but that it’s functionally the same. It’s also functionally the same to say that any traffic not on the CDN is in a slow lane or being held ransom, in the sense that it will be congested until the publisher pays.
- davorak 12y ago
  No, as far as I can tell the incentives in the two scenarios are very different. The transparence on what is being payed for and why some sites are fast and some are slow is not the same for Comcast's subscribes in the two scenarios either.
- pdonis 12y ago
  > It’s also functionally the same to say that any traffic not on the CDN is in a slow lane or being held ransom You're confusing routes with endpoints. CDNs are endpoints--multiple endpoints containing the same data so that there is a much higher probability of having an endpoint close to any given user. The owner of the data has to do all the work of getting multiple copies of the data placed at all those endpoints, making sure they're all in sync, etc. But the data traveling from endpoint to endpoint--from the nearest CDN node to the user--is not privileged over any other data. What the net neutrality debate is about is the ISPs wanting to control routes--i.e., to be able to say that some data traveling over a given route from one endpoint to another endpoint gets to travel faster than other data traveling over the same route. CDNs don't do that. What Netflix bought from Comcast is sort of in between. It's like a CDN in that Netflix still has to do the work of placing multiple copies of their content at different endpoints in different locations; but it's also like the ISP route control scheme in that Netflix' data gets a privileged route from their endpoints to Comcast users, a route that non-Netflix data from endpoints that are similarly situated does not get, because non-Netflix data can't travel through the special connection points that Netflix now has with Comcast. Normal CDNs don't do that either.
  - mwsherman 12y ago
    A CDN is a route, is my contention. Its value is being closer to the user. CDNs are a good thing. But they are networks like any other, the difference being that the nodes are smart enough for to re-request data they already have. CDN nodes should be understood as caching routers. Being closer to the user – the CDN’s value – rests in having a better position vis-à-vis the last-mile network. A better position vis-à-vis the last-mile network is what Netflix bought.
    - pdonis 12y ago
      > A CDN is a route, is my contention. Its value is being closer to the user. Being an endpoint that is closer to the user is not the same as being a route between that endpoint (or any other endpoint) and the user. > CDN nodes should be understood as caching routers. In some respects, yes. But in other important respects, no. For example, CDN nodes do not route traffic that does not have that node as either a source or a destination. The fact that the content at that node ultimately comes from another source does not change that; it simply means that some of the traffic to and from the CDN node is to and from the ultimate source of the content. It's still not at all the same as routing traffic to and from arbitrary endpoints. > Being closer to the user – the CDN’s value – rests in having a better position vis-à-vis the last-mile network. A better position vis-à-vis the last-mile network is what Netflix bought. You're conflating two different ways of taking a "position" in the network. A CDN takes advantage of the existing network and the existing routes to place copies of content closer to users. It can only use the existing "positions" in the network, not create new ones. The Netflix deal created a new privileged route that didn't exist before, for Netflix content going to Comcast users only. So the "position" Netflix traffic is now in with respect to Comcast users didn't even exist before the deal.
      - mwsherman 12y ago
        A new CDN node is a new privileged route. An existing CDN node is not a new privileged route. > CDN nodes do not route traffic that does not have that node as either a source or a destination. Correct. That is true of any router. Netflix did buy a new route, replacing the one they were previously buying from Cogent.

natdempk 12y ago

Not quite, this blog post from Netflix highlights a couple key differences in their case: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.html http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.h... > Transit networks like Level3, XO, Cogent and Tata perform two important services: (1) they carry traffic over long distances and (2) they provide access to every network on the global Internet. When Netflix connects directly to the Comcast network, Comcast is not providing either of the services typically provided by transit networks.

chc 12y ago

The bright and shining difference is that a CDN does not have a contract with the end user, and consequently doesn't connect directly to them. When we talk about a "fast lane" (or more accurately a "slow lane"), what we essentially mean is an ISP holding access to its users hostage. This is the opposite of how a CDN works, because those are paid by the provider to speed up access to its data, rather than being paid by the consumer for access to the provider's data. Basically, what is proposed here is preventing an ISP (which is already a recognizable category) from starting a CDN business — a very bad one, since it only delivers content to itself — and artificially slowing down non-CDN traffic that has already been paid for on the other end in order to prop up its CDN business.

stcredzero 12y ago

Something is going on here, such that the market isn't working. Otherwise, Comcast et al would be buying CDNs and vertically integrating to increase profits. But with our current system, it's more cost effective to lobby your way into bigger profits.

ColinDabritz 12y ago

The difference to me is that CDNs increase the availability of content to everyone. If CDNs did not exist, the content would still be available. Comcast is talking about "not decreasing" the availability of content. Some businesses can afford to pay to use already-paid-for infrastructure. Others are out of luck, and their content is not fully accessible. If Comcast did not exist, current users would not be able to request content, but the market could provide a solution in an alternate ISP. With Comcast the market cannot provide a solution, because it is actively being suppressed by Comcast.

Yardlink 12y ago
There isn't really a difference between "increasing" and "not decreasing". Some of these debates have been about ISPs not investing in infrastructure when they otherwise might have. The market can still provide a solution with the Comcast payments. That would be customers wanting fast everything don't use Comcast. If there's no competition for those customers then that's the real problem - a monopoly - not what tricks the monopoly uses to take advantage of people.