Comcast and Netflix now have a direct adjacency(gist.github.com) |
Comcast and Netflix now have a direct adjacency(gist.github.com) |
ISPs are common carriers and must be regulated as such, because as soon as Comcast makes its own netflix-like service, you can forget getting netflix to stream smoothly.
Comcast owns NBCUniversal and a 1/3 share of hulu as well as an "ondemand" service through the comcast cablebox and the internet, "soon" happened already. And in many places netflix on comcast already does not stream smoothly (almost unquestionably due to throttling of netflix traffic).
So if you can make a case that they're "almost unquestionably" throttling Netflix, you could probably find some people very interested in that... but it sounds more like they were just saturated and are now taking steps to alleviate it.
"Not available in all areas. Set-top box required to access On Demand on TV. Programming not available On Demand in all areas. Basic Service subscription required to receive other levels of service. Not all programming available in all areas. Equipment, installation, taxes and franchise fees extra. Pricing subject to change. Streampix included with the following tiers of service: Blast Plus, HD Preferred Plus XF Triple Play, HD Premier XF Triple Play and HD Complete XF Triple Play. Services and features subject to change..."
[1] http://www.comcast.com/streampix (see the legalese at bottom)
Now Comcast gets to count these bytes against their customers' quotas, and it costs them nearly nothing to deliver the traffic.
This reminds me of NNTP, but Netflix is still running their own hardware.
[1] Netflix's "Open Connect" https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect/guidelines
I believe they've been looking at offloading that congestion and frankly moving Netflix is a no brainer.
198.45.63.0/24 *[BGP/170] 2d 05:02:06, MED 150, localpref 100, from 68.86.80.82
AS path: 7922 2906 I
To me, this is disturbing. Surely there is some financial incentive for Comcast to do this.
It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of thing that the whole "net neutrality" issue is trying to prevent (i.e. back office deals that give one content provider better access over others)
Or... am I just missing lots of things? (wouldn't be the first time!) :)
I'm a Comcast user in San Mateo, CA.
Only after calling and complaining for a week did they change the route, and magically, the latency and 50%+ packet loss went away.
Even so, if it were in fact going via the IX, you'd see Netflix's IP from the exchange (206.223.116.133) as hop 8 in the traceroute.
Have fun blocking that address and other known Netflix cdn
Strategically, Netflix was holding a far weaker hand because the ISPs had no reason to give in since their brand perception was already so bad. I mean really, is it possible to hate Comcast more than most people already do?
Yes. Right now the average person only hates Comcast because its a monthly bill, it increases frequently, and there is not much competition, they don't yet hate Comcast for the technical reasons "internet" people do.
But if Comcast starts making Netflix, YouTube, etc not work correctly and starts affecting the average American's daily life it will become a political issue. Congressmen will start seriously discussing turning the internet into a utility.
I don't think Netflix should have to engineer a solution to that problem AND pay the ISP for the privilege of saving them tons of money.
If the costs (4U of rack space, networking equipment, and network engineering around privacy/security) are more than the ISP would save, it's an easy decision.
Note that in this case, it does not appear to be the use of an appliance. If that were the case I think we'd see the Netflix content coming from a Comcast IP.
I offered to help them set up an API instead of scraping, but they decided scraping was easier in the short term.
They have already done this, it should be opposed. You don't want people who can't balance a checkbook and think that the internet is a "series of tubes" deciding how you get internet access. The PUC/FCC rules and tarrifs are already a byzantine nightmare.
I loled. Congress has a lot more important problems on its plate than this (social security, immigration, health care, etc.) On this issue they're just going to do what ever their friendly telecom lobbyist tells them to do.
It all depends on relative size. Bigger networks can demand money from smaller networks and/or CDNs. Networks of comparable size can profitably peer with each other without exchanging cash. Comcast may not do it for free, but the national ISP in a smallish developing country sure might.
It's a big dance, and the relationships are constantly changing. Managing it all in software to actually optimize cost and performance is a big part of the secret sauce for a CDN.
Also it's largely semantics where a device like OpenConnect is hosted. Netflix could host it at a datacenter across town with a direct fiber interconnect to the ISP and it would be effectively the same thing. This is how all the big CDNs do it; that way they host equipment once and connect to multiple local ISPs.
You have no idea how big CDNs do it. I've personally installed CDN gear into ISP racks. Sometimes you get an uplink into a router, other times you sit on a switch with other gear.
That "direct fiber interconnect" is called private peering and mostly used to fill cache boxes on the providers network.
Regardless, the word on the Netflix-Comcast situation is that Netflix is indeed hosting the hardware at 3rd party datacenters with a dedicated connection to Comcast. Whether you call it an interconnect or private peering is just semantics; it's a pretty common practice in the industry and technologically, it's no different than having a 10gig fiber link within a datacenter.
You haven't been paying attention to that Edward Snowden fella, have you?
The second paragraph is wrong too, there are much closer relationships possible. They're much deeper than that today, and I would expect in the future to see CDNs much deeper in provider networks.
(Don't downvote him, it's a valid question)
300TB is quite a lot, even today.
I spent way too much time pruning stupid crap such as slashdot and started to learn this 'Bayesian classifier' thing.
Your idea is much better.