8 ms·

Verizon is blaming Netflix for sending "an unprecedented amount of traffic" and "not taking steps to ensure that there is adequate capacity for their traffic to

by cs702 12y ago

Verizon is blaming Netflix for sending "an unprecedented amount of traffic" and "not taking steps to ensure that there is adequate capacity for their traffic to enter" Verizon's network. The thing is, Netflix is NOT pushing any of that traffic to Verizon. It is Verizon's customers who are pulling that traffic from NetFlix -- and they are paying Verizon to deliver it!!! More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7701494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7701494

Florin_Andrei 12y ago
Why are Bridges Dangerous? Dispelling the Killing Myth signed: The Trolls
- vampirechicken 12y ago
  Is there a special lane for billy goats?
MrVitaliy 12y ago
Not to be devils advocate, but if I have 75mbps pipe at home and some internet server is on 1mbps, I'll still be buffering because of the server connection not mine. Right?
- wdewind 12y ago
  You shouldn't be downvoted for this. It's a reasonable question, it's just not what's happening. The traffic is reaching Verizon (or Comcast etc's) network at reasonable speed, and then congesting.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    But it's also not right to say it's reaching Verizon. It's not. It's just hitting the edge of their network. Now you can say that Verizon is responsible for making sure the edge connection works properly. But you could also say that Netflix shouldn't just dump it's entire load onto shitty congested peer points. Think of Verizon as an island city with 10 bridges. Netflix is trying to send 1/3 of all the traffic through one bridge. This causes congestion on that bridge when the other 10 bridges are moving fine. Verizon is saying, use a different bridge they are all open. Netflix is saying, add more lanes to the one I use because I'm delivering loads to people who ordered it. Both are valid arguments. However, one thing to consider is that Netflix could switch ISPS tomorrow and start dumping their load on a different bridge. Realistically it's absurd that Netflix isn't use a whole variety of ISPs to manage the load themselves. Other big data providers do it. Why can't they? But also, Verizon is probably playing hardball because they are a competitor.
    - flurp 12y ago
      The real question is whether Verizon is saying "Use the other bridges" or "If you pay us we can open another bridge for you". What I've read mostly points to the latter and Netflix is either taking a stand against this practice or Verizon wants to much money.
    - fyrabanks 12y ago
      > Realistically it's absurd that Netflix isn't use a whole variety of ISPs to manage the load themselves. Other big data providers do it. Why can't they? IIRC, Netflix offered to provide hardware to all the major ISPs that would cache Netflix content at the ISP data centers. Not a single one took them up on the offer.
      - Alupis 12y ago
        That was the Open Connect Hardware. Free big storage boxes for all ISP's who wanted them. They also offered to change their entire distribution model to P2P as-to keep the traffic burden inside the consumer isp's network (which effectively costs them nothing, it's ingress traffic that is the major costs). Level3 has even offered to split the costs of upgrading the Big5 ISP's peering connections. All options were refused.
        wdewind 12y ago
        > They also offered to change their entire distribution model to P2P as-to keep the traffic burden inside the consumer isp's network (which effectively costs them nothing, it's ingress traffic that is the major costs). Why wouldn't they do this anyway? How does the ISP have any say in whether or not Netflix distributes their content via P2P? Or am I misunderstanding?
        Alupis 12y ago
        P2P would make the service quality depend on how many people were online, etc... I think they'd rather sort it out another way. But regardless, even with that offer, Comcast scoffed at it, citing Netflix would still be a "large burden" to their network. (which would be even more-so false than it currently is).
- cujo 12y ago
  If they're pushing more than 1mbps to all connections, yes.
diminoten 12y ago
Well, Netflix is pushing traffic to Verizon. Saying they're not is factually incorrect. They're just doing so in response to requests coming out of Verizon networks. Still though, Verizon customers are running Netflix apps, which are making the requests, so it's not like customers are doing the requesting "in the raw", or as "informed" consumers. They're just clicking "play" on Netflix video devices. Also, Verizon customers aren't paying Verizon to deliver content, they're paying Verizon to try to deliver content. This goes all the way back to the "unlimited" deception ISPs pull on consumers, and Verizon is double-guilty of this deception, as they're a cell phone carrier as well. Edit: I really hate to be that guy (and I know I'm breaking rules by saying this), but have we really devolved to the point where we downvote everything that isn't 100% in agreement with the hive mind? I thought HN was better than this. I'm just getting so sick of being downvoted because I'm offering a different angle - I've been polite, deferent, and explanatory, and my words get sent straight into the "grey" anyway. You're given downvote privileges because it's been determined that you're capable of thought, please don't disprove that.
- groby_b 12y ago
  That's silly word twisting. Following that logic, my bartender is pushing drinks on me, just by my request.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    Bartenders will get fined and lose their license if they serve drunk people. Also, calling what I said "word twisting" isn't really addressing their argument, it's more or less just name-calling, which companies are really good at ignoring. To beat them, you've got to do better than that.
    - swasheck 12y ago
      > Bartenders will get fined and lose their license if they serve drunk people. only because they don't have a large lobby organization to protect them from the laws ;)
rayiner 12y ago
You're paying Verizon for a connection to their network, but that doesn't make it Verizon's responsibility to pay to upgrade every intermediate network on the way to every destination a Verizon customer might request data from. That is not how peering on the internet has ever worked. See this circa 1999 article about peering and settlement on the internet: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_2-1/peering_and_settlements.html http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/i... (Part I); http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/ac174/ac200/about_cisco_ipj_archive_article09186a00800c8900.html http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/ac174/ac200/about... (Part 2). Note that this was published by Cisco 15 years ago, long before any of these disputes arose. We're talking about a very settled understanding of how the internet works that Netflix is trying to overturn to help its own bottom line.
- Alupis 12y ago
  Wrong -- I'm paying Verizon for access to the internet -- more specifically, for access to Netflix. If I can't get Netflix, I don't pay Verizon. I either get a new ISP, or don't have internet at all. It's rather simple. Verizon's customers are consuming traffic, and it's Verizon's job, as a consumer network, to facilitate consumption of said traffic.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    There is no such thing as the "internet." What appears to be the "internet" is just a mesh of interconnected but private networks all running the same protocol. The Cisco article I linked to above shows you what you're actually buying. What you're talking about is an illusion that only exists in software.
    - Alupis 12y ago
      You are arguing over the semantics of the word "internet" and completely missing the bigger picture. I only pay Verizon so that I can have access to Netflix content. No access to Netflix, then I'm not a Verizon customer any longer. Verizon is a Consumer Network -- so by definition, almost all of their traffic will be ingress. Level3 has a great blog post detailing the issues at hand. Specifically, they state the consumer networks are refusing to upgrade their networks, and this is shifting the burden to Level3. Level3 knows they are refusing, because they have discussed the matter with the "Big 5" ISP's here in the states. Level3 has even offered to split the cost with the Big5, which as they pointed out, is a win-win for everyone involved. Yet, the Big5 still refused. http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/chicken-game-played-child-isps-internet/ http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/chicken-game-play...

by cs702 12y ago

Florin_Andrei 12y ago

Why are Bridges Dangerous? Dispelling the Killing Myth signed: The Trolls

vampirechicken 12y ago
Is there a special lane for billy goats?

MrVitaliy 12y ago

Not to be devils advocate, but if I have 75mbps pipe at home and some internet server is on 1mbps, I'll still be buffering because of the server connection not mine. Right?

wdewind 12y ago
You shouldn't be downvoted for this. It's a reasonable question, it's just not what's happening. The traffic is reaching Verizon (or Comcast etc's) network at reasonable speed, and then congesting.
- rhino369 12y ago
  But it's also not right to say it's reaching Verizon. It's not. It's just hitting the edge of their network. Now you can say that Verizon is responsible for making sure the edge connection works properly. But you could also say that Netflix shouldn't just dump it's entire load onto shitty congested peer points. Think of Verizon as an island city with 10 bridges. Netflix is trying to send 1/3 of all the traffic through one bridge. This causes congestion on that bridge when the other 10 bridges are moving fine. Verizon is saying, use a different bridge they are all open. Netflix is saying, add more lanes to the one I use because I'm delivering loads to people who ordered it. Both are valid arguments. However, one thing to consider is that Netflix could switch ISPS tomorrow and start dumping their load on a different bridge. Realistically it's absurd that Netflix isn't use a whole variety of ISPs to manage the load themselves. Other big data providers do it. Why can't they? But also, Verizon is probably playing hardball because they are a competitor.
  - flurp 12y ago
    The real question is whether Verizon is saying "Use the other bridges" or "If you pay us we can open another bridge for you". What I've read mostly points to the latter and Netflix is either taking a stand against this practice or Verizon wants to much money.
  - fyrabanks 12y ago
    > Realistically it's absurd that Netflix isn't use a whole variety of ISPs to manage the load themselves. Other big data providers do it. Why can't they? IIRC, Netflix offered to provide hardware to all the major ISPs that would cache Netflix content at the ISP data centers. Not a single one took them up on the offer.
    - Alupis 12y ago
      That was the Open Connect Hardware. Free big storage boxes for all ISP's who wanted them. They also offered to change their entire distribution model to P2P as-to keep the traffic burden inside the consumer isp's network (which effectively costs them nothing, it's ingress traffic that is the major costs). Level3 has even offered to split the costs of upgrading the Big5 ISP's peering connections. All options were refused.
      - wdewind 12y ago
        > They also offered to change their entire distribution model to P2P as-to keep the traffic burden inside the consumer isp's network (which effectively costs them nothing, it's ingress traffic that is the major costs). Why wouldn't they do this anyway? How does the ISP have any say in whether or not Netflix distributes their content via P2P? Or am I misunderstanding?
        Alupis 12y ago
        P2P would make the service quality depend on how many people were online, etc... I think they'd rather sort it out another way. But regardless, even with that offer, Comcast scoffed at it, citing Netflix would still be a "large burden" to their network. (which would be even more-so false than it currently is).
cujo 12y ago
If they're pushing more than 1mbps to all connections, yes.

diminoten 12y ago

Well, Netflix is pushing traffic to Verizon. Saying they're not is factually incorrect. They're just doing so in response to requests coming out of Verizon networks. Still though, Verizon customers are running Netflix apps, which are making the requests, so it's not like customers are doing the requesting "in the raw", or as "informed" consumers. They're just clicking "play" on Netflix video devices. Also, Verizon customers aren't paying Verizon to deliver content, they're paying Verizon to try to deliver content. This goes all the way back to the "unlimited" deception ISPs pull on consumers, and Verizon is double-guilty of this deception, as they're a cell phone carrier as well. Edit: I really hate to be that guy (and I know I'm breaking rules by saying this), but have we really devolved to the point where we downvote everything that isn't 100% in agreement with the hive mind? I thought HN was better than this. I'm just getting so sick of being downvoted because I'm offering a different angle - I've been polite, deferent, and explanatory, and my words get sent straight into the "grey" anyway. You're given downvote privileges because it's been determined that you're capable of thought, please don't disprove that.

groby_b 12y ago
That's silly word twisting. Following that logic, my bartender is pushing drinks on me, just by my request.
- diminoten 12y ago
  Bartenders will get fined and lose their license if they serve drunk people. Also, calling what I said "word twisting" isn't really addressing their argument, it's more or less just name-calling, which companies are really good at ignoring. To beat them, you've got to do better than that.
  - swasheck 12y ago
    > Bartenders will get fined and lose their license if they serve drunk people. only because they don't have a large lobby organization to protect them from the laws ;)

rayiner 12y ago

You're paying Verizon for a connection to their network, but that doesn't make it Verizon's responsibility to pay to upgrade every intermediate network on the way to every destination a Verizon customer might request data from. That is not how peering on the internet has ever worked. See this circa 1999 article about peering and settlement on the internet: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_2-1/peering_and_settlements.html http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/i... (Part I); http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/ac174/ac200/about_cisco_ipj_archive_article09186a00800c8900.html http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/ac174/ac200/about... (Part 2). Note that this was published by Cisco 15 years ago, long before any of these disputes arose. We're talking about a very settled understanding of how the internet works that Netflix is trying to overturn to help its own bottom line.

Alupis 12y ago
Wrong -- I'm paying Verizon for access to the internet -- more specifically, for access to Netflix. If I can't get Netflix, I don't pay Verizon. I either get a new ISP, or don't have internet at all. It's rather simple. Verizon's customers are consuming traffic, and it's Verizon's job, as a consumer network, to facilitate consumption of said traffic.
- rayiner 12y ago
  There is no such thing as the "internet." What appears to be the "internet" is just a mesh of interconnected but private networks all running the same protocol. The Cisco article I linked to above shows you what you're actually buying. What you're talking about is an illusion that only exists in software.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    You are arguing over the semantics of the word "internet" and completely missing the bigger picture. I only pay Verizon so that I can have access to Netflix content. No access to Netflix, then I'm not a Verizon customer any longer. Verizon is a Consumer Network -- so by definition, almost all of their traffic will be ingress. Level3 has a great blog post detailing the issues at hand. Specifically, they state the consumer networks are refusing to upgrade their networks, and this is shifting the burden to Level3. Level3 knows they are refusing, because they have discussed the matter with the "Big 5" ISP's here in the states. Level3 has even offered to split the cost with the Big5, which as they pointed out, is a win-win for everyone involved. Yet, the Big5 still refused. http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/chicken-game-played-child-isps-internet/ http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/chicken-game-play...