Netflix and net neutrality

Just reading this on the BBC.

Netflix are complaining that ISPs are making them pay for net neutrality.

What I can't see is if the ISP by default is actively slowing their traffic or if it is being degraded because of it having to contend on an equal basis with other traffic.

If it is because of contention then what Netflix is actually doing is paying for their traffic to have special priority essentially lowering the priority of other traffic. In that case it isn't they are having to pay so that they can get net neutrality but they are paying so that they actually stop net neutrality (they are big enough to afford it and because their traffic is high priority it will negatively impact the small innovators they are saying should be supported).

Its hard for isps. People want cheap broadband but are using more and more bandwidth. Something has to give

I don't blame the ISP in this. If they are treating all traffic equally then every "supplier" takes their chances. But, Netflix don't want to be treated equally - but want to still say they support net neutrality. They can't have it both ways.

And anyway, since when has there ever been net neutrality. The amount of connectivity a supplier can hook up is dependent on the depth of their pockets. Netflix can afford multiple gigabit+ pipes to connect and peer with the Internet. Smaller companies can't - therefore net neutrality has never existed and never will.

Seens net neutrality is a big issue in the USA than over here where we have over the years been use to throttling and restrictions on certain types of data

Edited by bobble_bob (Fri 21-Mar-14 16:01:28)

In the case of Comcast they were intentionally running Netflix over congested transit. They've made Netflix pay to peer with them.

The difference in the US is the market -- most consumers have very limited choice for broadband connectivity, generally at most a choice between one DSL provider and maybe one cable provider. With little competition inevitably the consumer loses out.

In the UK, lots of competition, so if your ISP delivers poor Netflix performance you swap to one that performs better, i.e. the one providing the best connectivity (to Netflix) wins. In the US, the consumer suffers until Netflix pay the ransom.

hmm, if a person only watches netflix does that mean they risk their connection buffering more now there is no net neutrality? i.e. if netflix didnt pay up.

Also isn't this setting a precedent for isp's to dictate what the end user can and cannot watch?

ISP's need to be very careful of this path as by manipulating traffic it means they risk endorsing traffic they allow through unhindered.

Which is why Netflix are unhappy.

I posted on this subject here:

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/park/f/4309502-usa-...

But it seemed no one was interested

I think the important thing to look at here is what the money Netflix has paid is being used for.

If the ISPs are using all of it to invest in infrastructure, then fair enough. But if it's just sitting in Comcast's (et al.) accounts, then the ISPs' actions are deplorable.

I agree - I almost edited my post to say something similar but decided against it.

If it is to allow Comcast to invest in additional capacity then it doesn't seem that wrong. If Comcast were doing something to purposely hinder Netflix traffic then that would be an issue. It could be difficult to prove that they chose to put Netflix traffic over congested links as a way to blackmail Netflix into paying out.

I think there is more behind this story than either Comcast or Netflix will admit to.

No, that's all it is - Comcast slowing down Netflix to force them to pay. It's easily shown by http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/

But does that prove that they are actually slowing Netflix or just that they are investing less than the other ISPs. Without seeing that Netflix is directly worse than other parts of the internet than that page does not prove they are deliberately slowing Netflix compared to other sites/protocols.

You seem to think they are in competition with other ISPs. It has already been pointed out that the US market doesn't work like that.

I never said that. You are suggesting that they are slowing things down and using speeds of other ISPs to show that. The link you posted does not prove intent to slow Netflix down to allow them to extort money

That's exactly what it shows. They will now rise through the ratings as Netflix are paying.

Sorry, I disagree. Net neutrality is about everything being treated equally - so if Comcast have underinvested in capacity then everything will be performing slowly - that website gives no proof one way or the other.

By Netflix paying Comcast presumably will invest in capacity just for Netflix meaning reserved bandwidth available. And the moment they do that they are no longer neutral as they are providing a better service for Netflix than for everything else

Therefore netflix have the cash to be able to make their service better and therefore could stop other niche/new providers from getting started - exactly what Netflix say they don't want to do

You clearly don't understand Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication.

This is exactly what has happened.

I do understand it but seem to see it differently

I have seen no evidence that Netflix traffic was not treated the same way as all other traffic on Comcast. However, by Netflix paying they are looking to get an increased level of service.

How is Netflix paying to get their traffic higher priority than other traffic not against net neutrality?

So before Netflix paid Comcast was being neutral (or there is no evidence proving they aren't). Post them paying they are getting higher priority and therefor no longer neutral. But Netflix are saying they want net neutrality.

In reply to a post by ian72:

How is Netflix paying to get their traffic higher priority than other traffic not against net neutrality?

It is against net neutrality, which is why Netflix are complaining.

I think you have to look at the huge recent growth in online streaming from the likes of Netflix, Youtube, Hulu and Amazon Instant. These sites now account for close to 60% of all downstream internet traffic in the US.

I understand both sides of the argument.

Netflix argue that Joe Bloggs pays his ISP for high speed internet access. This should mean he has high speed access to all sites irrespective of whether it is for streaming, web browsing etc. He is not being sold a restricted service. When Joe Bloggs wants to watch a film through Netflix, his ISP should be able to satisfy that request.

What the big ISPs (like Comcast/AT&T) have been doing, is deliberately holding back on expanding their networks. They've argued that big streaming companies, like Netflix, have been "dumping" data on their networks and should be responsible for paying for this.

Some of the big peering/content delivery providers have been very critical of the ISPs and their actions. They have tried to step in and offer cost effective solutions and future network plans, but the ISPs have refused to sit down until companies like Netflix agree to pay interconnect fees.

It will be interesting if a similar scenario develops in the UK. Can you imagine the BBC being charged to provide data to ISPs? It's not a cheap business in the UK either - the greatest cost for an ISP (non-LLU) is what BT Wholesale charge per Mb/s for data to be transmitted from the ISPs data centre to your exchange.

Edited by deleted (Sun 23-Mar-14 12:31:35)

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by ian72:

How is Netflix paying to get their traffic higher priority than other traffic not against net neutrality?

It is against net neutrality, which is why Netflix are complaining.

Exactly, the CDNs couldn't come to an agreement with the ISPs and therefore Netflix suffered as a result. Netflix advocate net neutrality and are pretty [censored] they had to stump up the cash to pay for what the ISPs customers are already paying for. The reason they had to pay is because like the customers they're equally screwed by the lack of competition. If their customers can only get Comcast, and Comcast won't invest without a pay packet from Netflix then what choice does Netflix have? Otherwise their customers on Comcast will just cancel their Netflix subscription due to the unreliability of the service.

Unfortunately for Netflix is even though they paid begrudgingly they did pay, which has now set a precedent that they will pay if pushed. Perhaps they decided the drop off in customers wasn't worth the risk.

And because Netflix will pay they are setting a precedent that will wipe out those providers who can't afford it. Netflix have agreed to break net neutrality by paying Comcast. I see Netflix as being as guilty here as Comcast. Comcast seem to be underinvesting in their network and if people like Netflix will pay to increase that bandwidth then Comcast will continue the same way.

Net neutrality won't fix this. Net neutrality just means all traffic is treated the same - in the case of Comcast at present it would all be equally slow. Just because it is slow doesn't mean it isn't following net neutrality. To fix this the companies would have to be forced to provide a particular level of bandwidth - can't see that happening.

This is no different to the poor performance seen on sky non-llu or on low cost talktalk connections. The difference here is that you don't have to use those services. And people keep on pointing to how wonderful broadband is in the us - some areas it is good but clearly it is not consistently so.

They're not guilty, the law that would have been broken was struck down by an action brought by Time-Warner, Comcast and Verizon. They promised they would still behave in the spirit of the law, they told their customers not to worry, and then they went ahead and blackmailed Netflix. That's why Netflix are complaining.

In reply to a post by ian72:

in the case of Comcast at present it would all be equally slow

You keep saying this but I don't know where you got it from. I suspect you invented it.

I never said net neutrality would mean the service isn't slow. I only stated that that Netflix are complaining because their hand is being forced to further dampen the net neutrality efforts because of Comcasts woeful lack of investment in their network and reluctancy to reach a fair agreement with CDNs like Cogent and Level3 on peering.

Yes you're right, broadband is far from wonderful in the US, as I pointed out for a lot of people companies like Comcast are the only choice.

I agree with you that Netflix have set a precedent as I previously said but I don't feel their as guilty as Comcast. They're stifled by a lack of regulation and a business model that relies heavily on 3rd parties. If they didn't pay Comcast they'd lose a lot of business, and nobody from the FCC is working to control this.

It's a case of screwed if they do, screwed if they don't.

Interestingly it would seem Comcast customers only complained about Netflix streaming problems and not Hulu, YouTube etc.

This could be the case of the different peering agreements agreed with the different CDNs

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by ian72:

in the case of Comcast at present it would all be equally slow

You keep saying this but I don't know where you got it from. I suspect you invented it.

Brandscill may have provided the evidence I was looking for.

What I was saying is that if everyone is sharing the same bandwidth under net neutrality then all services would suffer from contention and be slow if bandwidth was under provisioned. That is what net neutrality means - everyone shares the same bandwidth equally so all are equally slow or equally quick.

If it is shown that Netflix are the only ones suffering from poor performance on Comcast as brandscill suggests then that would give evidence towards Comcast not being net neutral. As brandscill also states that is not illegal but it would be grounds for complaints from Netflix and their customers. But I also think if that is true that Netflix could have fought for their customers rather than giving in to Comcast - I can understand why they may give in (profit) but if they truly stand for net neutrality then I have to wonder if there was more they could have done to apply pressure to Comcast.

I think in terms of Netflix giving in it's a business decision overruling an emotional one. They fought the problem for several months with Comcast and Cogent failing to come to an agreement and ultimately had to deal with Comcast directly. As the terms of the agreement were never disclosed we can't really assume why a deal was brokered instead of an ongoing battle. Given how public Netflix have been and how quiet Comcast have it does lean a suggestion to a stale mate on Comcasts side and blackmail to get things going.

Having worked for an ISP I'd like to add some points. (Sorry if they have been covered already!)

1. Netflix is a big company, they make money from their customers (the service isn't free so I'll assume there is profit). Therefore if the traffic associated with this service is so high that it significantly affects the ISP's then ISP should get a cut of this profit to improve their capacity so that Netflix can still deliver their service to customers. If not then price of the internet connection will need to rise as the usage does.

2. ISP's are always struggling with costs of bandwidth. Peering costs are not really the issue, the costs for the access network are, i.e. BTw.

3. With the current model it is hard to build a CDN that works efficiently. The CDN needs to be in the access network, as close to the customer as possible to save costs. More like a web cache in a corporate company. For residential connections this needs to be in the exchange. Therefore Netflix should be installing servers in each exchange and offer direct peering to BTw and LLU operators from there, not just Telehouse etc.

4. Innovation isn't restricted by this issue as many think it is. Innovation whatever it is won't use much bandwidth in comparison until such time that it become the norm.

5. It shocks and annoys me that Which? are now campaigning for guaranteed speed on residential connections. They seem to completely forget that residential connections are only affordable because they are contended, best effort and have no SLA. If a residential customer needs a connection with guarantees then they should buy the correct product, a leased line.

I think as far as your number 1 is concerned it can be looked at the other way. Netflix do not create any traffic on the Internet. The traffic is only generated by an ISP customer accessing the content. Therefore I would say it is the ISP customer that should pay for the traffic rather than Netflix.

On you number 3 I agree - if they want to get really good performance then they need to invest in CDNs. But that is likely to be extremely expensive with the number of exchanges in the country - and you would get into a position of a digital divide where the big exchanges have CDNs and therefore good service and the small ones don't because it is uneconomical.

Bad form replying to myself but another article on the reg shows Apple looking at a deal with Comcast.

So, stupid question. What happens when everyone is paying Comcast for special treatment? If Comcast haven't increased their capacity sufficiently and all providers are paying for special treatment then they will essentially be back to net neutrality (ie everyone is special and therefore no-one is) and Comcast will be raking in the profits.

Netflix is right.

If Netflix pays a broadband isp for bandwidth then that isp is been paid twice, netflix eg. isnt plusnet's customer. Netflix just sends its traffic out to the internet and at that points its no longers its responsibility.

The answer is simple.

If Broadband isp's find they cant pay for enough capacity out of revenue, then either accept reduced profits or increase prices. Or decrease usage limits, burst speed limits.

A morale isp doesnt let its links get congested. Meaning in a net neutral situation netflix works fine as is.

So to confirm you dont blame the isp for letting its links get congested?

indeed, netflix dont dump data, comcast, at&t's own customers request it since these customers pay comcast and at&t for conenctivity these isps have already been paid for the traffic.

What it comes down to is they got the maths wrong and want netflix to bail them out. Netflix already will be paying for their traffic with their own upstream provider.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 24-Mar-14 09:15:32)

Considering this is pure speculation at the moment it would be difficult to comment on how the system would work.

If it's simply a case of the Apple TV providing Comcast customers with channels they get on their normal cable box and that content was provided and hosted by Comcast it would be no different to the way their cable box currently works with regards to live and on demand content.

Similar to the Virgin Media cable box.

In reply to a post by ian72:

Just reading this on the BBC.

Netflix are complaining that ISPs are making them pay for net neutrality.

What I can't see is if the ISP by default is actively slowing their traffic or if it is being degraded because of it having to contend on an equal basis with other traffic.

If it is because of contention then what Netflix is actually doing is paying for their traffic to have special priority essentially lowering the priority of other traffic. In that case it isn't they are having to pay so that they can get net neutrality but they are paying so that they actually stop net neutrality (they are big enough to afford it and because their traffic is high priority it will negatively impact the small innovators they are saying should be supported).

Okay. Kinda. Comcast were running Netflix over intentionally congested transit links. Transit isn't something that should ever congest, transit providers usually specify in agreements that the pipes should never max out, Comcast were engineering traffic so that Netflix sucked, and refused to allow Netflix settlement free peeing or to install their CDN on the Comcast network.

Now, selective peering is something that's happened for a while. Pulling content from a CDN hosted on an ISP network is something common to many of us - Google have You Tube caches on some networks, Akamai have caches all over the place on ISP networks, and Google peer directly all over the place.

The issue in the USA is that places like LINX, open peering LANs are in relatively short supply, they just work differently.

Netflix are paying to connect directly to the Comcast network at a number of different peering points, where previously they were connecting via a handful of congested transits via intermediaries. They are, apparently, also going to be paying less for this than they were for the IP transit to get to Comcast previously.

Comcast most definitely degraded Netflix traffic intentionally, as an MSO they were trying to slow down cord cutting. They appear to have finally gotten with the programme here, and for all their jumping up and down Netflix aren't going to be too depressed by all this. They will save money in the medium term and will be able to deliver a higher quality service to a massive subscriber base.

The losers here are really the people who were selling the IP transit.

I doubt that this will set a precedent really. Netflix is the #1 bandwidth application in North America and should be considered a special case. This does not violate network neutrality, if anything IMHO it corrects an anomaly where Netflix's neutral access to the Comcast network was being violated by Comcast's traffic engineering policies.

Yes, Netflix were held to ransom, however they aren't paying more, they are just paying Comcast directly now for the bandwidth. It leaves a bad taste however I don't think the Internet is going to come crashing down as a result.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Okay. Kinda. Comcast were running Netflix over intentionally congested transit links. Transit isn't something that should ever congest, transit providers usually specify in agreements that the pipes should never max out, Comcast were engineering traffic so that Netflix sucked, and refused to allow Netflix settlement free peeing or to install their CDN on the Comcast network.

I'm interested in who pays for CDNs to be hosted on an ISPs network. For instance, BT Sport host a CDN on Sky for Sky Broadband customers. It seems to me both parties benefit from this arrangement since it results in less transit charges for IP transit.

Is there any exchange of money here, or do Sky just allow BT Sport to host a CDN on their network for free since it benefits both parties?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

I'm interested in who pays for CDNs to be hosted on an ISPs network. For instance, BT Sport host a CDN on Sky for Sky Broadband customers. It seems to me both parties benefit from this arrangement since it results in less transit charges for IP transit.

Is there any exchange of money here, or do Sky just allow BT Sport to host a CDN on their network for free since it benefits both parties?

I couldn't speak for that particular deal but in the case of the Netflix and Akamai caches I've seen on ISP networks no money changed hands, the hosting was free.

The BT Sport deal could just as easily have been tied into the cash BT paid Sky to appear on the satellite EPG.

I do blame the ISP - but even if it is congested as long as it is equally congested then it isn't a net neutrality issue - it is a bandwidth issue for the ISP. They are being neutrally bad to everyone.

If it is correct they were purposely putting Netflix on to congested links then they are not being net neutral and are purposefully trying to extort money from Netflix.

This makes for a good read on the subject.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/24/5541916/netflix-de...

Along the lines of what I was saying earlier, business decisions and lack of net neutrality legislation meant Netflix had little to fall back on, and instead they ended up making a deal in order to protect their core business. Unfortunately this sets a bad precedent.

The reason they still push hard for net neutrality is simple, this costs them money, and in their opinion (and mine) it's wrong that ISPs should be paid twice for maintaining their own networks.

Hmm, that has me even more unconvinced about the arguments that either side are making.

If I were to assume that Comcast are making a not unreasonable profit (possibly an incorrect assumption) then the enormous increase in traffic caused by Netflix streaming (which is what gives Netflix a profit) would cause the company to potentially lose a substantial amount of profit if they have to upgrade their interconnects.

So, if they need to get more income they can either charge Netflix or they can charge their users. In some ways charging Netflix is actually fairer as it is then Netflix customers that ultimately foot the bill rather than it being charged across all the customers of the ISP.

I am beginning to wonder from that if it isn't correct the Netflix should be paying towards this as it is their users causing the bandwidth issue.

The alternatives are that the ISP share the additional costs across all their users (including those who don't use Netflix) or they only charge those that use Netflix (probably as a "bolt on").

The only net neutral option is to charge all of the customers of the ISP equally for the pipe upgrades. But, if a user doesn't use Netflix why should their bill increase in order to cover the bandwidth of those that do.

And then we get onto the grounds of the only way that Internet billing truly works is to charge per GB. Because otherwise who pays for the bandwidth required for P2P downloads, Lovefilm, YouTube, etc. Charging per protocol would be impossible - charging per GB would seem to be the only way then Netflix wouldn't have to pay the ISP because the user already is - for every bit of data they use.

Oh dear - but then most traffic is done at peak times so maybe you need to charge more for peak data than off peak - because it is the size of the pipe they probably pay for rather than the amount of data transitting (although could be both). AAISP charge this way already as I suspect a few others do but not many.

I think it's more the case that the internet needs to be treated as a common carrier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJOZEVQOfNc

How would net neutrality effect ISPs who traffic manage certain ports through their FUP?

I am assuming that would be against net neutrality and therefore they would no longer be allowed to do so. But, guess that depends on the letter of any law that is laid down.

EU package does allow for 'paid' boosts so long as elevating them does not reduce best efforts (i.e. normal) traffic.

As with many EU laws a lot will depend on each countries interpretation or some may rebel and refuse to endorse it.