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.