FCC bigwig grills Netflix: If internet fast lanes are so bad, why did YOU build them? An FCC commissioner has asked Netflix to explain an apparent contradiction in its demand for net neutrality: on the one hand, Netflix wants an open and neutral internet for all – and on the other hand, it's making deals with ISPs to speed up its video streams. Netflix pays Comcast and Verizon to install servers within their …
"Netflix pays Comcast and Verizon to install servers within their broadband networks to stream movies and TV shows straight to their subscribers – without having to go across the wider, slower internet like its rivals."
That is not the same thing as paying for a 'fast lane'. If we're going to use the road/car analogy where Netflix is a widget supplier shipping its products to customers via the 'roads' owned by the ISPs, the this more like Netflix building depots and warehouses closer to customers.
They are paying to store the content in a network of servers located closer to consumers so that they it can be delivered to them faster.
I'm sure there's a name for that somewhere but it is very esoteric and not much used.
Oh right - a CDN.
Other than being a good idea on its own, this can be seen as a way to help mitigate the problems that are caused by the alleged slow lane/fast lane structure.
At any rate, the logic is kind of flawed when it is suggested that paying a premium for something means you must support it. That is like saying that anyone paying a 'baggage' allowance or a credit card booking fee supports these things.
Alternately, it could all be about profit. If Netflix wasn't paying for the own servers within the networks, it would save them some money. So by that logic, a neutral net means the flicks would come from their data center to the customer without having to build out at the Comcast/Verizon level also.
I think this whole thing comes down to both sides wanting the other guy to spend the money for infrastructure.
Having the cake and eating it too.
An old story. Be against free trade, then export, claiming free trade. Be for taxing the rich, then against taxing the rich as the "rich" attribute descends to your level etc. etc.
So by that logic, a neutral net means the flicks would come from their data center to the customer
Or rather, might come from their data center to the customer if they were the only one on the infrastructure.
Here here! I was about to post my own response about that until I saw yours that just about sums it up perfectly. Netflix is paying extra for the ability to be in two (actually many more) places at once, so it doesn't need to "drive" on any "lane" at all to get to its destination, because it is already there.
Also, I'd like to also say that, as there are currently no laws one way or the other on this matter, Netflix is taking the pragmatic approach and doing right by its customers by paying the necessary extortion to deliver its services to its customers, while meanwhile beseeching its government to step in and make that unnecessary; it's hardly duplicitous.
Does this sound like the kind of absurd, yet spectacular, piece of circular logic "gotcha!" that only a smirking, corrupt politician experienced in hoodwinking morons could come up with? That's because it is. Both Pai and his advisor, Brendan Carr, are as in bed with the industry as Wheeler and his advisors, Philip Verveer and Daniel Alvarez - former telecoms lobbyists and counsels them all.
This is an insulting degree of spin that predicates itself, the type of zinger that doesn't have to be explained to the "common folk" because the whole thing is so polarized that they don't care about inaccuracies as long as it bolsters their own viewpoint or position, and the harder you counter it the more the "common folk" believe it. It's messaging, pure and simple messaging. You can just picture people nodding along to the argument, believing that Netflix should have stood their ground, damn the torpedoes all, no matter how damaging maintaining the status quo with AT&T and Comcast would have been to their business, any wavering obviously a sign of complicity. That the commissioner and his advisors believe that this line of reason will resonate is dangerous, regardless of what you think about the net neutrality debate and potential regulatory ramifications. Policy shouldn't be decided based on who most impresses their friends with community college sophomore level quips.
Netflix pays for infrastructure because the ISP's are unwilling to build the upgrades needed to keep up with the rest of the world. IMHO, FCC commissioner is looking for excuses to collude with the ISPs. I Think the fully corrupt FCC commissioner is looking for an excuse to shift blame and pave the way to kill net neutrality allowing the fully corrupt USA ISPs have it their way.
"We have to enact business contingency plans because we at Netflix are entirely uncertain about your ability, as the FCC, to enact and enforce net neutrality in accordance with the will of the American people, in accordance with the principles of free commerce and public utility availability, and against the army of lobbyists the monopolies keep sending to Washington and YOU GUYS KEEP FUCKING LISTENING TO FOR SOME FUCKING REASON.
Right back at you FCC!"
I'm not a proponent of net neutrality because I love Netflix or the way they do business, I am doing it because I want there to be room for other, smaller companies to improve upon or supplant Netflix, thereby driving Netflix to improve it's business.
Plus, basically what was described as being problematic by the FCC is Netflix's use of a CDN. Hardly new technology, nor a technology that is only used by the internet's great and powerful.
What I don't want to see is a world where Netflix and maybe Hulu are the only real streaming video offerings, because they have deep enough pockets to pay for the fast lane when everyone else doesn't. Plus creating a fast lane for some content means that other content necessarily gets a slower lane than it would have normally, because network bandwidth is not immediately scalable.
"What I don't want to see is a world where Netflix and maybe Hulu are the only real streaming video offerings, because they have deep enough pockets to pay for the fast lane when everyone else doesn't."
Those aren't the people you have to worry about. Think more about companies like Comcast that are vertically integrated (they own NBC Universal) and therefore have an innate (read: fiduciary) interest to push their own content over Netflix's. If Time Warner Cable looks to link back up with Time Warner the media company or one of the companies eyes up the Disney conglomerate (or vice versa), there can arise a conflict of interest between integrated media providers and outsiders (think of the times when railroad companies owned timber land or mines).
If the FCC hasn't been keeping up with this story, they're either Corrupt or Incompetent.
They should not be acting surprised, as this is old news. Guess they haven't been reading all the letters Netflix and other providers have been sending them for the past several years.
Both?
I assume this is his completely unbiased opinion as an ex Verizon associate general council? Someone needs to nail those revolving doors shut!
Netflix didn't go down the caching route because they wanted 'fast lanes' they did it because it makes sense from a network traffic point of view and also because they responded to the market, it was cheaper due to the way the peering & transit was positioned. What they are doing is technically no different to any other colo customer of a tier 1 network or CDN.
The big ISPs are ALREADY implementing a "pay to play" model. Perhaps Netflix HAD to pay if it wanted to be able to continue in business.
I smell a rat in the FCC revolving door here. They're basically claiming that Netflix bowed to blackmail, therefore it must be guilty of wanting the situation where the blackmail was possible?
The FCC (puppet of the Telcos) is lying.
First the telcos invent a misleading term "fast lanes" when what they impose are *slow* lanes, by throttling/QoS. Then their bought-and-paid-for FCC lobbyists, attack Netflix for paying the ISPs ransom money to ensure their users are not choked.
Netflix was *forced* to pay Chokefast to ensure its streams are not throttled *down*, not in order to provide it with "faster lanes."
I have been paying Chokefast for over 25 megabit down. Yet, before Netflix paid them the extortion money (pay us or else...) my movies were frozen multiple times during view.
With the bandwidth I pay for, I should have been able to comfortably watch about 10 movies in parallel without Netflix having to add a dime to help my poor single stream play.
Does the FCC really believe the public is going to fall for these obvious lies?
Does the FCC really believe the public is going to fall for these obvious lies?
It is all about traffic flows, and the path the traffic takes. I have posted a traceroute from my location to netflix:
Hop Hostname IP Time 1
1 toy-box-2.local 192.168.1.4 0.098
1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 0.637
1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 0.645
3 72-31-xxx-xxx.net.bhntampa.com 72.31.xxx.xxx 13.217
4 ten1-0-0.tamp82-cts1.bhn.net 71.44.17.18 21.675
5 ten0-1-0-3-4.tamp20-car1.bhn.net 71.44.3.16 19.709
6 ten0-13-0-0.orld71-CAR1.bhn.net 71.44.1.209 20.106
7 72-31-188-174.net.bhntampa.com 72.31.188.174 18.780
8 10.bu-ether15.orldfljo00w-bcr00.tbone.rr.com 66.109.6.98 22.116
9 bu-ether18.atlngamq47w-bcr01.tbone.rr.com 66.109.1.72 39.166
10 107.14.17.188 107.14.17.188 28.116
11 67.106.215.89.ptr.us.xo.net 67.106.215.89 27.396
12 vb2001.rar3.nyc-ny.us.xo.net 207.88.13.10 88.763
13 te-3-0-0.rar3.dallas-tx.us.xo.net 207.88.12.2 85.409
14 vb12.rar3.la-ca.us.xo.net 207.88.12.46 83.696
15 207.88.14.234.ptr.us.xo.net 207.88.14.234 83.911
16 216.156.84.6.ptr.us.xo.net 216.156.84.6 81.967
17 xe-2-2-0-955.jnrt-edge02.prod1.netflix.com 69.53.225.30 83.618
18 te1-8.csrt-agg02.prod1.netflix.com 69.53.225.10 84.773
19 netflixinc.com 69.53.236.17 83.532
As you can see, and if this were to represent a movie download, traffic flows from Netflix through XO Communications to end up at my ISP (BrightHouse). Also, look how it gets bounced around within XO's network. All of these segments are places for contention, and there are at least 2 instances where transit and peering come into play (Netflix -> XO, and XO -> BrightHouse). Transit costs money, and out of balance peering can lead to disputes (Cogent, anyone?)
Joe Sixpack can't get that because Joe Sixpack has SHIT for brains, and is incapable of dissecting the issue, which, I am sorry to say, is quite muddled; and due to inaccurate and misleading information posted on the web, not as cut and dried as many think.
NOW, if Netflix had a direct connection to BrightHouse, then the traceroute might look like this (it would depend on where the two would interconnect):
Hop Hostname IP Time 1
1 toy-box-2.local 192.168.1.4 0.098
1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 0.637
1 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 0.645
3 72-31-xxx-xxx.net.bhntampa.com 72.31.xxx,.xxx 13.217
4 ten1-0-0.tamp82-cts1.bhn.net 71.44.17.18 21.675
5 ten0-1-0-3-4.tamp20-car1.bhn.net 71.44.3.16 19.709
6 ten0-13-0-0.orld71-CAR1.bhn.net 71.44.1.209 20.106
7 72-31-188-174.net.bhntampa.com 72.31.188.174 18.780
8 10.bu-ether15.orldfljo00w-bcr00.tbone.rr.com 66.109.6.98 22.116
9 bu-ether18.atlngamq47w-bcr01.tbone.rr.com 66.109.1.72 39.166
10 xe-2-2-0-955.jnrt-edge02.prod1.netflix.com 69.53.225.30 83.618
11 te1-8.csrt-agg02.prod1.netflix.com 69.53.225.10 84.773
12 netflixinc.com 69.53.236.17 83.532
Which would cut XO out of the loop, and move the traffic flow from Netflix -> BrightHouse. BrightHouse may see relief in its transit/peering arrangements with XO.
Netflix almost certainly pays XO for transit, so Netflix may see a reduction in its transit costs; but the real winners is the rest of the traffic that flows through that path. It would not have to contend with the volume of traffic from Netflix clogging an already crowded lane.
So, I have to ask the FCC: "How is this a bad dea????"
The answer is ultimately not a software solution but an infrastructure solution. The time must come to pass when we update and unify the country's Internet. This will make security manageable and increase everyones bandwidth. Internet access would become less tainted by 'bundles' and corporate greed. The problem of streaming exists only in very slow access markets. Where consumers can only access the net via slow bundled connections. The suggestion of making the net a utility in the style of., is intelligent, savvy, prudent, responsible and an answer to many woes. It must come to pass.
The funny thing is it wouldnt be that hard to do.Do you really think ATT and Comcast want us all to know that?
OK. Who pays for it? Because running a high-speed line between New York and Los Angeles (or worse, between Miami and Seattle) isn't going to be cheap. And then you have to consider all the cities in between (which if you'll note is very sparse throughout most of it). If there's one thing against the USA when it comes to the Internet, it's geography. Indeed, I can't think of any BIG country that has uniform and universal high-speed access. All the top-runners are SMALL countries.
Those Netflix devices aren't caches. They are full fledged servers, which they bully ISPs into hosting for free by telling them that their customers can't get HD otherwise. And then Netflix expects the ISPs to give them the upstream bandwidth for the servers for free too!
What a deal! A free fast lane, free hosting, free power, free air conditioning, and free bandwidth. Who has the market power here?
I connect to an ISP and there is an SLA in place that guarantees me a minimum service level. Netflix connects to an ISP and there is an SLA in place that guarantees them a minimum service level. The various ISPs connect to each other with an SLA in place that guarantees a minimum service level. The source and destination should have nothing to do with billing. Where did this simple setup get broken?
Fire Works
Twice this article uses the redundant neologism "advocate for":
* "asking him to explain why his company advocates for net neutrality"
* "improve streaming performance while advocating for net neutrality"
For God's sake, it's advocate, not "advocate for"! The "for" is redundant and unnecessary!*
Why is this ridiculous error suddenly burgeoning? Why are even people who (should) know better, and who (presumably) have been using the term correctly for decades,** suddenly succumbing to and perpetuating this ghastly abomination? The mis-usage seems to have arisen only in the past few years, but it appears to be spreading like wildfire.
.
* "For" can be used after "advocate" if it is short for and synonymous with "on behalf of". But then the noun that follows "for" does not denote that which is advocated, but instead denotes the person or entity on whose behalf or for whose benefit that thing is advocated. As in "The lobbyist advocated net neutrality for Netflix." That's the only way "for" ever legitimately gets in there.
Likewise, in regard to "against", the Verizon lobbyist does not "advocate against" net neutrality. He opposes net neutrality!
And he does this for Verizon. He opposes net neutrality for Verizon just as the Netflix lobbyist advocates net neutrality for Netflix.
But no one advocates against anything! (Or for anything!)
.
** I have in mind in particular not Shaun Nichols — about whom and whose background I know nothing — but the minister of a church I used to attend. But countless others as well.
The FCC and the DOJ are so totally unpredictable, and the Comcast lobbying army and political machine is so huge, that it would be irresponsible for Netflix to simply sit still in the face of the coming "ComcastFlix" that will surely be launched 1 minute after the Comcast merger is approved. There will be Metered Billing for Netflix streaming--making each Netflix movie cost at least a US dollar to watch, and no Metered Billing for "ComcastFlix." You be the judge: If you're Netflix, what do you do?
Short version: "Why are you paying protection money, while also wanting the authorities to clamp down on protection rackets?" Put like that, I hope the FCC can grasp the situation better. Of course Netflix are paying right now, because they want to stay in business. Of course they want that fixed.
(Yes, for big ISPs Netflix are trying to mimic the Akamai structure of colocated edge nodes, as well as offering free peering - nothing wrong with that, IMO; I suppose a small charge by the ISP might be justifiable, although the savings they make in transit costs should justify giving it free anyway.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
