techguy001 wrote:Well, I don't think Netflix cares much about where any one ISP is at any point in time. What was interesting is that for Canada Bell showed up at the top of the list while Rogers showed up at the bottom of a list of 10 ISP's in Canada. Makes you wonder if Bell had any input in this publication.
In any case given the recent agreement with NETFLIX USA and COMCAST regarding their preferred network arrangement it has caused a major uproar with all carriers and the FCC for NET NEUTRALITY rules and laws. We should stay tuned as this could affect all Internet services as we've known them if it spills to the rest of the world.
I agree that NETFLIX is flexing its muscles given their continued rise but as with any one player in the past that has tried to dominate and change the rules, eventually there will be others that will challenge them at their own game.
And the 'major uproar' is... utterly besides the point, quite frankly. And this has NOTHING to do with net neutrality (though it's in Netflix's bottom line's interest to pretend otherwise)
The Internet of 15 years ago, where all traffic went through multiple providers, is long gone. In the late 1990s, for example, Yahoo bought all their connectivity from Exodus, and that was it. And then big Canadian networks bought US transit from MCI or Sprint, smaller Canadian networks brought transit from big Canadian networks (Bell, iStar, Sprint Canada), etc. And so you'd go through 4-5 networks to reach Yahoo from your Canadian dialup ISP. If more than one big US provider (e.g. Sprint, UUnet, MCI) were involved, those big US guys were peering with each other for free, and everybody else paid someone to get them closer to the big US providers.
That's not how things work anymore, and haven't for some years. Big content and big residential ISPs (including non-U.S. ones) have both set up operations in big carrier hotels, and have been running direct peering connections to each other. So traffic from Rogers to Facebook, say, goes directly between the two. Same with Rogers and Google, Rogers and Microsoft, etc. And this arrangement saves everyone a ton of money - why would Facebook pay a transit provider to deliver a few gigabits/sec to some provider that brings them closer to Rogers, and why would Rogers pay a different (or the same) transit provider to receive it when they can just pay a building's landlord for a cable between two racks and connect to each other directly?
But removing middle networks also can create some very bizarre political issues, which are what we're seeing now...
The controversy between Netflix and Comcast has everything to do with what money, if any, will be exchanged for such an arrangement now that Netflix no longer wants to use paid third-party CDNs (who presumably would make whatever deals with whoever are necessary to reach Comcast). Underlying this, though, is the fact that Comcast and Netflix are SO BIG that there are no realistic alternatives to them connecting directly.
Note, BTW, something interesting: with the model of 15 years ago (a modernized version of which they were essentially following until they decided to stop using third-party CDNs), Netflix would be paying an Exodus (which has long gone out of business) or Level3 for transit, and that would be the end of it from their perspective. With the new model, instead of paying a transit provider, they run their own network.. and then they want to shame/regulate/etc Comcast into peering with them on a massive scale for free. Better connectivity directly into Comcast's network, without 1-2 intermediaries, and not only do they not pay the intermediaries, but they also don't pay Comcast! Serves their interest very well, doesn't it?
(And it should tell you something that they agreed to pay Comcast, and then their CFO said the cost of the Comcast deal wouldn't materially affect their financial results. Clearly Comcast isn't charging an unreasonable price compared to what Netflix was paying for the previous arrangement through third-party providers...)
But to get back to your earlier point, I think otherwise. Netflix's business model requires them to have a large subscriber base, which means reaching non-tech-savvy customers, who are more likely to have stuck with cable, even possibly analog cable still, rather than have gone to Fibe TV or satellite or whatever. So Rogers is far more threatened by Netflix than Bell... which means they have the most temptation to play dirty. If a particular month's numbers look particularly bad for Rogers, why not publish them as a ... preview... of the PR trouble that will be headed Rogers' way if they actually were to do something vaguely intentional?