4 ms·

Netflix didn't buy transit from Comcast; they paid Comcast some large fee to upgrade links to one or more transit providers that Comcast would in the ordinary a

by malchow 12y ago

Netflix didn't buy transit from Comcast; they paid Comcast some large fee to upgrade links to one or more transit providers that Comcast would in the ordinary and traditional course of business done itself, so as to continue delivering its traditional unrestricted internet product to customers. Netflix can't reach every Comcast node around the country, so it couldn't have 'bought transit' from Comcast. It did try the next best thing: colocating, at its own expense, servers at Comcast POPs with cached Netflix content. Comcast said no thanks to that one. Netflix also tried buying extra capacity from other transit providers (Tata and some others.) I think -- but am not certain -- that, when Comcast learned that that deal had happened, it began failing to upgrade those links, too. It's hard to think of an explanation for these peering disputes between CDNs/transit providers and consumer ISPs that doesn't imply ISP hostage-taking. (Where the consumer is hostage.) These consumer ISPs have an easy job: keep these links to the middle networks and backbone networks up to date. And keep the copper in decent shape.

cheald 12y ago
> they paid Comcast some large fee to upgrade links to one or more transit providers Do you have a link for that? I was unaware of any of that happening. It was my understanding that Netflix is engaging in paid peering directly with Comcast now (http://bgp.he.net/AS2906#_peers http://bgp.he.net/AS2906#_peers). You're right that Netflix isn't technically buying transit from Comcast, but they replaced their transit purchased from Cogent with paid peering purchased from Comcast; the net effect is the same. > It's hard to think of an explanation for these peering disputes between CDNs/transit providers and consumer ISPs that doesn't imply ISP hostage-taking. I think that's exactly what's happening here, but it's done as a bargaining chip in the never-ending peering wars, rather than Comcast specifically engaging in rent-seeking from Netflix. The history of settlement-free peering is long and sordid, and last-mile providers have been at odds with the T1s for decades. Netflix massively amplified that dispute simply by virtue of the amount of bandwidth they consume.

by malchow 12y ago

cheald 12y ago

> they paid Comcast some large fee to upgrade links to one or more transit providers Do you have a link for that? I was unaware of any of that happening. It was my understanding that Netflix is engaging in paid peering directly with Comcast now (http://bgp.he.net/AS2906#_peers http://bgp.he.net/AS2906#_peers). You're right that Netflix isn't technically buying transit from Comcast, but they replaced their transit purchased from Cogent with paid peering purchased from Comcast; the net effect is the same. > It's hard to think of an explanation for these peering disputes between CDNs/transit providers and consumer ISPs that doesn't imply ISP hostage-taking. I think that's exactly what's happening here, but it's done as a bargaining chip in the never-ending peering wars, rather than Comcast specifically engaging in rent-seeking from Netflix. The history of settlement-free peering is long and sordid, and last-mile providers have been at odds with the T1s for decades. Netflix massively amplified that dispute simply by virtue of the amount of bandwidth they consume.