back to article Netflix swallows yet another bitter pill, inks peering deal with TWC

Netflix has inked yet another peering deal with a major US telco, this time signing an interconnect agreement with Time Warner Cable. The streaming video giant confirmed that it had put in place faster direct connections between its own network and those of the US cable provider. Netflix issued a brief statement on the matter …

  1. alwarming
    Paris Hilton

    Genuine question (and maybe that's not the point of the article).

    But is netflix making backend deals with telco/isp in violation with net neutrality ?

    I thought net neutrality was telco/ISP not prioritizing any traffic that flows THRU them. But if a faster link (/a local cache on ISP premises) exists betweem my server and ISP, I don't see how it violates net neutrality.

    Can someone please explain ?

    Earnestly.

    1. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: Genuine question (and maybe that's not the point of the article).

      Your instincts are correct.

      Netflix has to fairly share costs for the dedicated interconnection. It's a matter for fair negotiation, not a campaign based on misinformation. E.g. that whole "3 Mbps" nonsense "when I'm paying for 30...".

      That said, if specific telcos are cheating, then call them out. With facts. I think that they did so in one case. Lawsuits are reasonable in the worst case.

      Netflix - purveyor of brain pablum. Explains a lot.

      1. P. Lee Silver badge

        Re: Genuine question (and maybe that's not the point of the article).

        Isn't the point that there is wrong on both sides?

        Netflix is pushing out Tbits to servers (rather than cacheing properly) on the ISP networks each day and the ISP's are upping the peering charges for netflix in order to prevent competition with their own offerings.

        It's easy to fix, have a single published peering-connection rate card for all peers, rather than allowing individual negotiations. Go on FCC, make it so!

        That would stop the protectionism and push netflix into some decent caching.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Genuine question (and maybe that's not the point of the article).

          Nothing wrong with pushing Tbits if you pay for Tbits. It's if Netflix or their customers are charged more because it's Netflix Tbits instead of Google Play Tbits or Apple iTunes Tbits.

          Neutrality means even playing field, as supposed to anticompetitive pricing. Like "oh, your email is from John, so I'm charging double because I like Fred and he pays me back handers when I sell servers..."

    2. JeffMohler

      Re: Genuine question (and maybe that's not the point of the article).

      Netflix is realizing that the way things work, is they have to -pay- for a fast pipe to their customers, so that they get the service that they PAID for.

  2. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    "Net neutrality FUD campaign failure means Netflix has to share costs fairly"

    There, I fixed it for you.

  3. lambda_beta
    Linux

    TWC and Comcast

    Comcast is about to purchase TWC. Coomcast is also making a deal with Charter to swap customers, which leaves Comcast as the monopoly it always wanted to be.

    Bottom line:

    Net neutrality is DEAD! (Actually it never had a chance). So buckle up and feel the greed.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But we don't

    Just to be clear... we don't actually call it extortion... it's a service level agreement.

  5. ipghod

    good. I guess the other content providers explained to them the way the internet works, to quit bitching and just pay the freight like everyone else does.

  6. earl grey
    Unhappy

    "major US telco"

    TWC is not so much a "major US telco" as a large ISP and cable TV provider. Any "telco" services they supply are minor and not subject to normal telco regulation.

  7. Justin Pasher

    I'm so confused

    Netflix complains that the speed issues are due to the end user's ISP. The ISP says it's because Netflix is sending traffic over other upstream providers that don't have the capacity to carry the traffic. Yet now, Netflix creates another peering agreement with another ISP. They even have a peering agreement arranged (but maybe not implemented) with Verizon, but they had their recent spat over who's at fault for the slow down.

    What in the world am I missing? Netflix complains that the problem is with someone else, then they establish peering agreements with those parties. Are they just trying to make the ISP look like the bad guy? Is Netflix just bi-polar?

    1. chris lively

      Re: I'm so confused

      Yep, you are really confused with how business works.

      Netflix has demonstrated that their data is being slowed down by various ISPs. To combat this they are doing two things. First, they are trying to get net neutrality signed which would prevent ISPs from intentionally screwing with traffic based on source. (It's common, easy to demonstrate and completely denied by the lying bastard ISPs) Second, they are signing deals with ISPs that will prioritize their traffic.

      In other words they are trying to get the legal framework put in place so they don't have to sign these deals. While knowing that getting the laws passed is going to take quite a bit of time they are doing the only other thing they can for their customers which is to pay the bridge trolls.

      1. ipghod

        Re: I'm so confused

        Just to be clear:

        Netflix has only 'demonstrated' that the path to certain ISPs from THEIR purchased transit connection is slow. We've had people who know just enough to be dangerous perform 'tests' where they VPN to another ISP and run netflix through their VPN connection to 'prove' netflix is being throttled, yet fail to note that the VPN connection goes through an unrelated connection to where the original netflix stream would have gone. In otherwords, the 'test' is worthless.

        All it really means, is the transit provider they bought from wasn't giving them the performance to a third party destination they wanted... Which is out of netflix's hands, until they take the proper steps that EVERY ISP and content provider since the network started being built has taken, without throwing a screaming hissy fit about how unfair it is.

        Netflix's transit provider lacked the leverage to negotiate a better agreement with those end networks (Verizon, ATT, TWC, Comcast, etc). And indeed, what did they have to offer that those folks wanted? Access to a huge bump in traffic of the type that doesn't take well to being managed? And you want us to PAY to load our own network down for a SINGLE application? I don't see the benefit there. All the current situation does is expose a glaring weakness in the original netflix business plan (We can do it for cheap, because we can buy tons of 'Internet' transport from my discount provider _really_ cheap).

        Surprise, transport _is_ cheap, but not THAT cheap. And best effort MEANS best effort. If your traffic looks like a DDOS attack on my peering point, why can't I control how much traffic comes from a certain block of IPs/ASN? It's MY network and MY peering connection. It doesn't belong to Netflix, and they have ZERO say as to what I do with it. The 'net neutrality' mis-explanation going around would either effectively eliminate the network admin's judgment on how the network is run and replace it with regulations, (which would make the network useless, as it's over-run with crap they aren't allowed to filter/block/control), or demand ISPs build interconnects at no charge to each other, regardless of the value proposition between them. (If I start rick-flix, am I allowed to compel all major ISPs to drop mutliple 10GE connections into my data center on the off chance they may accidentally limit my traffic? for free? why not! If they don't I'll be limited!)

        It's high time the entire idea of 'public network means I can do whatever I want' dies. These facilities are run with the idea that they can pay for themselves, over time, as well as finance the next round of upgrades. If Netflix wants to sabotage that model by accelerating everyone's upgrade schedule so granny can watch matlock in HD on 3 screens around the house, either the ISP has to control how much bandwidth granny consumes, or they have to find a way to get SOMEONE to pay the freight for her busting the subscription model that allows her to pay $70 a month for big bandwidth instead of $700

        none of these facts are in dispute. Netflix, in the past, simply refused to acknowledge them, refused to understand that the entire network was built on the idea that everyone needs to contribute based on their utilization, and that certain apps are not suited to be run over public interconnects. THAT is reality, and no amount of legislation, moaning and bitching about 'fairness' or 'neutrality' is going to change that reality.

  8. JeffMohler

    I'll bet that _nobody_ here that thinks Netflix is the victim, has ever has held ownership of an ASN with full route table privileges.

    So therefore, really has no clue how the internet really works.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021