>> 1. The Comcast throttling thing was proven to be a different issue.
>> This happened, not on the ISP side, but on the transport network side.
>> All wholesale customers were affected.
>
> Is there some sort of reference in support of this claim? I've not seen
> one, and I've been reading extensively on this issue for months.
Interestingly, in the past several days there have been two major
articles on this in both Forbes and ZDNet. Also, there was an article
in the Washington Post earlier this month. Within the telecom industry
itself, this information is well known as we're in the trenches with
it. The trade blogs, newsletters and news venues, it's no secret.
>> 2. To follow that "delivery truck" metaphor, the ISP is the delivery
>> truck. What Netflix has done is load up the trucks with tons of
>> packages and not pay a dime for any of it.
>>
>
> Except, of course, for whatever they're already paying to get their data
> on-line via their own centers' network connections or agreements with other
> providers of bandwidth and/or remote storage and network access. No one
> gets network access without paying "a dime for any of it". One either pays
> an ISP or one runs private cable to someplace where someone will let you
> piggy-back on their existing connection.
Actually, not quite. Netflix is only paying to connect their data
centers to select Tier-1 providers. They were setting up
interconnections with Tier-2 providers, but ceased when they decided
to play politics. It was an overnight decision and it changed
everything. When you decide to connect to Cogent as your Tier-1
provider and expect all other ISPs to connect to you through Cogent,
you have no more cost factor. Netflix has paid for a single on-ramp
and is flooding the Internet with their content.
So, Cogent proceeds to have to upgrade their network to support this
traffic, and all other ISPs are upgrading their connections to support
Netflix traffic to Cogent. Netflix pays nothing for this. And that's
just at the Tier-1 pops. But the ISPs have to then transport this
traffic from the Tier-1 pop locations back to their service areas, to
the routers, from the routers to the switches, DSLAMs etc. All of this
network from the end-user to the Tier-1 pop, Netflix pays nothing.
They've only paid for the one pipe that they are using to flood the
Internet.
> Regardless, the idea of the Internet is that everyone pays some sort of fee
> in order to be connected, and, perhaps, also pays for an maintains some of
> the infrastructure. Perhaps if one or more of the biggies, like comcast and
> verizon, want to whine about what their share is, as compared with their
> revenue, then they ought to be willing to divest themselves of some of the
> cable plant, or at least of those non-compete/monopoly agreements they have
> with municipalities all over the country. At present they have monopoly
> benefits, but without the requirements that used to be in place for the old
> Ma Bell, for example. Back then, it was essentially required that Bell
> connect everyone, no matter where located. The current cable carriers are
> allowed to bypass anywhere and everywhere that doesn't meet their density
> (i.e. revenue) requirements. But, that's a result of them managing to
> convince technologically clueless legislators to support their bid to be
> "Information Providers" instead of "Common Carriers". In truth, they're
> BOTH, and the common carrier side should be handled as a common carrier.
What you describe is not the legal reality, thanks to "Telecom 96".
The company I work for is both ILEC, CLEC, Carrier, fiber-optic and
copper-plant owner. I deal with regulatory issues every week in my
job.
>> 3. Netflix has brokered a deal with the USPS to do exactly what they
>> are complaining about with the ISPs. In fact, there is an on-going
>> federal investigation into that one which may end up with criminal
>> charges.
>
> Reference?
Public record. The press has generally stayed quiet about it. It's
easier to present the populist view than to go against the public.
>> 4. Netflix is paying for the guerrilla marketing methods, such as
>> these cutesy little videos. You've been had.
>
> Do you allege that Verizon and Comcast and Time-Warner are not? If so, you
> must be in a television market small enough to not be getting the ads. Or
> the snail mail. And I'm not even gonna talk about how the big news
> organizations have all of a sudden *changed their tune* about which side of
> the debate they're supporting. And let's not forget who they rely on to get
> their signal in most households.
Here in Iowa, we just get political advertisements. No room for anything else.
> No, the *end-user* is. Via the 100$+ per month fee that many of us, (most
> of us) are paying. So where's the gripe? Are you suggesting that we should
> pay even more, if we want Netflix, than we already do for our so-called
> "guaranteed access at xxMB"? Why should it matter. Data is data is data,
> and I can fill up my pipe however I want. Next, Comcast/Verizon/Time-Warner
> are gonna be claiming we need to pay more for Gmail than Yahoo mail.
I'm not sure where you are at where you have to pay $100 just for a
broadband internet connection. If combined with a full package of
voice and television, I can see it, but not for the data. I know we
have business Internet packages that expensive and MUCH MUCH MUCH
more, but that's a different creature than home Internet. Most
consumers in the USA pay about $40. $50 tops.
You say that you can fill your pipe however you want. Well, not quite
so true. I would suggest a revisit of the fine print in your contract.
Pricing is based on an average of 20X oversubscription of the network.
> Name that "competition in most areas". As far as most people are concerned,
> Internet access is like the Highlander: "There can be only one!" And
> competition between Verizon and Comcast or Verizon and Time-Warner doesn't
> count, as those are the same people who used their status as "not common
> carriers" to force out most of the other smaller ISPs who weren't allowed
> to connect to their networks, while the (formerly independent) telephone
> companies had no choice but to peer them.
I didn't realize just how well connected we are here in "fly-over country".
> And the reason for this lousy connectivity density and poor access methods
> is not just multi-tenant dwellings vs dispersed population. It's the fact
> that there's no regulation requiring the same sort of service levels as a
> return for monopoly access to a given area as was required of the old baby
> bells. The reason there is DSL most everywhere is that common carrier
> status that the biggies want to avoid at all costs. As for cable modem, ask
> some of the people in this area, arguably one of the most densely populated
> in the US, why the Verizon/Comcast/Time-Warner/AT&T companies keep refusing
> to run cable to whole subdivisions.
Again, I'm not sure how this applies as Telecom 96 forever altered the
landscape.
> Are you seriously arguing that Netflix has more money throw at politicians
> than Comcast or Time-Warner or Verizon? Really? Or might it be that the
> FCC's current approach has more to do with having a former exec of one of
> those companies at the helm?
Netflix has definitely been throwing a lot of money at politicians and
have managed to frame the discussion in a way that has caused
everybody to jump on the "Net Neutrality Bandwagon" without a clue
what is really going on. The other players have been working hard,
behind the scenes, but have not made a stink about it publicly because
of the current climate where nothing short of a lynching of the CEO of
Comcast will do.
> You might actually be right here. But, realistically, one should be
> comparing industrialized democracies.
Of comparable geography and demographics.
> While I don't argue with your experience of conditions here, Ken, I wonder
> why, if this is Netflix common practice, we're not hearing lots of
> complaining from ALL of the backbone providers. Instead we hear only from
> those companies in direct competition with Netflix for the provision of the
> content. In fact, Level3 has published articles that definitely point to
> Comcast, et al. See here, for links and an article:
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/level-3-blames-internet-slowdowns-on-isps-refusal-to-upgrade-networks/
They ARE complaining!!! But they are treading a fine line because the
regulatory climate is "populist" right now. It's better to go along
and quietly pull the ropes behind the curtains, then it is to be out
front getting the rotten tomatoes thrown at them. The Level3 article
actually does describe the situation with Comcast, but one must
understand that the upgrade issues are not in regards to the
connectivity to the end-user, but to the other ISPs. Netflix has been
able to successfully get people to think that the slowdown is to the
end-user, but it's not. It's literally an Internet Backbone issue.
Comcast did fix the problem and we're back to normal again, except for
the continued Netflix attacks on the network routing side as they are
trying to catch the major ISPs off guard..
What Netflix is doing on a daily basis is not too different from a DoS
attack. They'll flood a connection to Comcast in San Jose with traffic
intended for Level3 or XO in Chicago. That forces ungodly amounts of
traffic to be rerouted across networks. Like I said, these guys are
scumbags. The moment anything does go wrong, they're posting notices
all over the place putting the blame on the ISPs.
> The point, however, is that Comcast, et al are arguing to be placed in a
> special status, where they get most of the benefits of being a common
> carrier, and none of the down-sides. And they're arguing that Net
> Neutrality is something "new" they're being required to do, rather than
> something that already existed that they no longer care to do.
"Net Neutrality" is not new. But what is being presented as the forced
regulation to it is new. Essentially, what Netflix wants is a complete
restructuring of how the Internet connects together. While I would
love to see some changes in that regard, it is happening just because
evolution makes it happen. Regulation will stop that evolution in its
tracks.
In all seriousness, this is only an issue because Netflix has made it
an issue. But, I shouldn't complain, because as my employer is an
owner of major amounts of fiber-optic network, we win no matter what.
In fact, it's pretty much a guarantee that our profits will go way up
because of it.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|