Likes: 
Faceplams: Here is a much more ranty response to The Oatmeal's comic:
Don't mistake masturbation for insight
It's kind of hilarious....
Active Member
Here is a much more ranty response to The Oatmeal's comic:
Don't mistake masturbation for insight
It's kind of hilarious....
Bite me
I have 7 TVs and 5 computers throughout the house. I also have the phone with 2 lines bundled in because I telecommute and have to send faxes and need land lines. So my Comcast bill is bound to be huge. But I'm actually an advocate of tiered Internet use plans for consumers.
Our cell plan is unlimited use because we have a grandfathered old plan. The newer plans are all tiered.
Last edited by allegro; 11-12-2014 at 11:33 AM.
Active Member
Setting aside the source of the graph, am I to understand that Comcast did not throttle Netflix and didn't ask for more money from them?
Active Member
All evidence points toward Comcast NOT throttling Netflix, especially in an intentional way to extort money. To be excessively pedantic, anytime a network connection sees more data than it can handle (congestion), there are flow control mechanisms in place to prevent the entire connection from simply ceasing to function. Can you call that "throttling"? sure. But that is not what Comcast is being accused of here. Congestion seems to be the likely reason for this as there are 4 other ISP's dropping off just like Comcast did in the Netflix provided graph. Some 3rd party graphs are actually suggesting that this slowdown may have been intentionally triggered by Netflix.Originally Posted by Deepvoid
Comcast did ask for money as part of a peering agreement, as is normal for every peering agreement. A peering agreement can be thought of as one network plugging directly into another. The party benefitting is always going to pay. Without peering, you have a bunch of isolated networks where you can only communicate with devices that live on the same ISP as you. Peering agreements are used for more efficient connections to a destination network. I have a great animated gif that explains this... i'll try and dig it up.
Active Member
Competition could help with the access and price of your internet. In the U.S., we are running down the road of having less of that. I know my last apartment, I had no choice. If I wanted internet, I had to get it from Verizon. Local Number Portabilty regulations that were legislated in 1996
And just so we all don't think that government isn't there to serve the people. The National Broadband Plan was enacted to support only a few years ago that includes support the extension of broadband access to the ~100 Million Americans that don't current have (rural) or afford (poor).
At this point, I need to go read more.
I still don't understand how @DigitalChaos graph tells us anything. Was there any explanation as to why the entire internet slowed down?
Active Member
Well, that first graph is what Netflix used to "prove" that Comcast was extorting them. That first graph is NOT representative of "the entire internet." It's representative ONLY of netflix download speeds on each of those networks.
What my post should tell you is that Netflix (and anyone reposting it *cough TheOatmeal *cough*) is full of shit.
Active Member
Many of the ISPs would love this. There was an interview with someone who works at an ISP (I can dig this up if you'd like) and he advocates for tiered pricing. The issue is that the customer do not respond well to it. What's really interesting is this weird pricing model is largely a consumer problem. Business lines are very much tiered. Tiered makes the most sense from the technical side. Hell, I am lucky enough to have a tiered plan at home... no sharing my bandwidth, completely dedicated slice of internet pipe awesomeness. I have been on it for 6 years and have had less problems than a standard Comcast line would normally give me in 1 week.
Active Member
Isn't it normal that the source of graphic is Netflix?
Who else could provide the speed from every provider available for Netflix only?
Active Member
It's only one tiny piece of the picture. And even from that tiny picture you can see the bullshit start to show.
There are many 3rd parties who specialize in this kind of thing. They have machines scattered all over that monitor speeds on various networks and can also monitor across all the different routes that traffic like Netflix may traverse.
The 2nd graph I posted does just that. The source is here: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/...decisions.html This is more indicative of "the entire internet" than the netflix graph. It also extends farther in time than the netflix graph. There is more analysis to be done for me to say this is PROOF, but it does hint toward Netflix actually causing these slowdowns on every ISP who didn't install the Netflix Open Connect caching servers in their equipment. (Open Connect servers essentially cache netflix movies and stream it to the customers, instead of streaming it across multiple networks from netflix servers). Netflix pushes more data across the internet than anyone and they absolutely have the power to trigger massive slowdowns. An example would be if they configure their routes to push data across very inefficient routes. (Think of it as rerouting traffic from 4 freeways across a single road. You get massive traffic congestion).
Active Member
Sorry, I meant to say The Measurement Lab graph. I totally get that sourcing data from one side is probably not a great idea. Measurement Lab appears to be funded in part by Google so there's that too.
Active Member
All good. So M-Lab is a 3rd party, that adds value in a "Party A vs Party B" situation. I'd love to see more 3rd party data, for sure. M-labs data only recently came out though.
What does their data tell you? Primarily, that what Netflix is claiming is false. What caused it? The data doesn't provide an absolute answer to this, but there are some possibilities. See my last post for what the article is proposing.
Worst case is that it ends up showing that Netflix caused this to manipulate public support and play victim... holy shit, if so.
edit: also, google is against paid peering (from a competitive perspective). So I'd even suggest that google's relationship to M-Lab has not contaminated the results.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 11-12-2014 at 06:27 PM.
Active Member
Finally found that animation I was talking about that makes it super easy to understanding peering.
On the right side, you can see a packet of data slowly move back and forth between source and destination. You can think of the Green and Blue nodes as Netflix and one of their customers in the Comcast network. That packet has to travel through multiple other networks to get where it is going. It's not the most efficient, but this is how a lot of data moves. When you have a lot of data moving along that same path, you will start to see slowdowns (congestion). The way to fix this is to directly connect the source and destination networks together (aka peering). This costs money to implement and maintain, so whoever benefits from that connection usually pays for it. As you can see, the packet moves much faster across the peer connection.
cliffs: right side = packet path before peering agreement. left side = packet path after peering agreement.
Active Member
I don't know. We might be running down the wrong road here. This is probably why this current news on net neutrality doesn't have Google and Netflix saying much. They already are investing in CDNs which gets around having to be beholden to a telco. http://www.businessinsider.com/netfl...etworks-2014-6
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network
Active Member
That's actually what lead to this mess.
So, a CDN is essentially replicating a server inside of each major network that you have customers in. Instead of peering two networks together, you simply put the server directly in the network. This would require the owner of the server to basically use whatever network the need presence in as the ISP for that server. Just about any major service (google, youtube, facebook, etc) all make use of CDNs and similar tech.
The Netflix Open Connect service that I mentioned a few posts back is the Netflix CDN. But instead of buying a connection for their "server" they are handing those servers off to each ISP to plug into the network on their own. Comcast (and Verizon) said "uhhh, no" and that is exactly where this whole Comcast vs Netflix battle started. Netflix decided that peering was the next best alternative, but they don't like paying for it. Netflix is trying to say that ISPs should provide peering for free.
edit: and if you go further back in time (2012 and earlier) when Netflix was using 3rd party CDN's that are already setup inside every network, you will see that there were no speed issues with Netflix. Netflix pushes so much traffic that it made more business sense to build their own CDN though. So they did this, but they don't yet have as much network coverage as the original 3rd party CDNs. They now are crying about it and trying to get that kind of coverage for free instead of paying like all the other CDNs have done.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 11-12-2014 at 11:25 PM.
Active Member
The most simple way to look at this is that Netflix wants all internet users to pay for the cost of delivering their movies to customers, instead of just Netflix customers paying for it. I mean, what business wouldn't want that? It makes the cost of their service much lower for their customers.
We have enough corporate socialism as it already is.
Active Member
So maybe we should all stop watching Netflix??
Active Member
lol
I'm honestly debating canceling my Netflix account after digging into this some more today. I'm all but certain that Netflix actually caused the massive slowdowns. The question is whether they did it intentionally or negligently. I'm actually enlisting the help of some friends to dig through historical routing records to shed some light on it. Either way, their public response seem to clearly be intentional deception. Swaying public opinion in an effort to push legislation is horrible. To be fair, there have been a few other tech companies that came to the side of Netflix on this one too. Fuck them too.
the "fighting for the internet" bullshit seriously pisses me off when it's a complete lie.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 11-13-2014 at 12:24 AM.
Bite me
I pay for Netlix and never use it, so I'm canceling today.
Re: "internet socialism" - That was exactly my point, before. Charging a ridiculously low rate to customers but knowing that all the other non-customer internet users are paying the difference and Netflix is raking in the profit in volume and not paying anything is just a bunch of shit.
Active Member
This was when you were talking about how you have to subsidize the high consumption users that you share an ISP with, right? At least with this, it happens to be all wrapped into a single business entity. It isn't one business covering operational costs of another business, like it would have happened if Comcast payed for the delivery of Netflix movies.
Bite me
I'm saying that NETFLIX is charging a low rate to its own customers, fully knowing that it is passing on the COSTS to everybody else. And, yeah, I want a tiered rate through my ISP so that I can still have "BLAST" but not pay as if I'm downloading a shitload of movies via Netflix every month, which I'm not. My "Blast" still sucks, though, because they'll only give me ONE line from the pole which feeds everything in my house. Which is a whole other topic. It's a monopoly I can't fight.
tempus est umbra in mente
I thought the Oatmeal comic was funnier...
I don't know. If Comcast wants to be the ISP to rule them all, and they apparently do, they need to improve their infrastructure to meet the stress demands that Netflix puts on them. Streaming video (and streaming video games) are going to become more and more popular, regardless of what lies in the future for Netflix. Rather than upgrade to handle that traffic, they'd rather rely on data caps and have Netflix foot the bill to improve their system because they're an unstoppable monopoly.
We can call out Netflix for being intentionally misleading with their cute graph, but fuck Comcast.
Active Member
It's not Comcast's network that was the issue. If it were, then simply plugging into it wouldn't have fixed the issue.
Netflix was getting into the Comcast network through Cogent. Cogent didn't want to upgrade their interconnects to Comcast just for improving Netflix speeds. So Netflix decided to bypass Cogent and connect directly to Comcast. Another thing to remember, that new connection will ONLY have Netflix data moving over it.
If you want to point fingers at shitty networks, point at Cogent. There is a reason they have rock bottom pricing of any Tier 1 ISP. If Netflix wants to create a CDN that delivers more data than anything else on the Internet, then they need to pay for a better provider than the cheapest possible option.
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 11-13-2014 at 08:38 PM.
Active Member
I love talking about this stuff and am more than happy to further dive into this stuff and answer any questions you may have.
I did want to make sure I supply further reading on this and evidence that the data exists in places beyond me. My goal in this thread was just to distill the highly technical data into something more easily understood by people who aren't network engineers. @allegro has done quite a lot of this on the legal side, so I can at least give back on the tech side.
So here are some sources that can verify what I have been saying about the Comcast vs Netflix situation:
New Study From M-Lab Sheds Light On Widespread Harm Caused By Netflix Routing Decisions - October 19, 2014
Netflix & Level 3 Only Telling Half The Story, Won’t Detail What Changes They Want To Net Neutrality - March 21, 2014
Here’s How The Comcast & Netflix Deal Is Structured, With Data & Numbers - Feb 27, 2014
Comcast's official response to Netflix (just found this today)
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 11-13-2014 at 09:52 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
and the tea party weighs in...
Active Member
Fuck the tea party. They have a small point hidden under the idiotic message.
Obama started this by saying that if we abandon the "free and open principles" of the internet, bad things would happen... therefore regulation! But when the fuck did we ever abandon those principles? Nobody can ever explain this outside of the Netflix vs Comcast situation. Sure seems like we are trying to fix something that isn't broken. Considering all the big companies who want regulation pushed forward... maybe we should all stop and think about why this is a sudden "need"
Banned
Charles Manson set to wed 26yo bride
APNovember 18, 2014, 4:40 pm
Mass murderer Charles Manson plans to marry a 26-year-old woman who left her Midwestern home and spent the past nine years trying to help exonerate him.
Afton Elaine Burton, the raven-haired bride-to-be, said she loves the man convicted in the notorious murders of seven people, including pregnant actress Sharon Tate.
Afton Elaine "Star" Burton and Charles Manson in Corcoran, Calif. Photo: Mansondirect.com/PolarisNo date has been set, but a wedding coordinator has been assigned by the prison to handle the nuptials, and the couple has until early February to get married before they would have to reapply.
The Kings County marriage license, viewed Monday by The Associated Press, was issued November seven for the 80-year-old Manson and Burton, who lives in Corcoran — the site of the prison — and maintains several websites advocating his innocence.
Burton, who goes by the name "Star", told the AP that she and Manson will be married next month.
"Y'all can know that it's true," she said. "It's going to happen."
"I love him," she added. "I'm with him. There's all kinds of things."
However, as a life prisoner with no parole date, Manson is not entitled to family visits, a euphemism for conjugal visits.
So why would Burton marry him under those conditions?
She said she is interested in working on his case, and marrying him would allow her to get information not available to nonrelatives.
"There's certain things next of kin can do," she said without elaborating.
Tate's sister, Debra, who acts as a spokeswoman for the families of Manson's victims, said the impending marriage is "ludicrous".
"I think it's insane," she said. "What would any young woman in her right mind want with an 80-year-old man?"
As for Manson's motives, she said, "The devil is alive and well."
Cult leader Charles Manson, charged with murder and conspiracy in the slayings of actress Sharon Tate and six others, is escorted by a deputy sheriff after a court appearance at the Hall of Justice in Los Angeles in 1971. Photo: AP/Wally Fong
Burton gave an interview a year ago to Rolling Stone magazine in which she said she and Manson planned to marry. But Manson, who became notorious in 1969 as the leader of a roving "family" of young killers, was less certain about tying the knot.
"That's a bunch of garbage," Manson said in the December 2013 interview. "That's trash. We're playing that for public consumption."
Asked Monday about those comments, Burton said, "None of that's true," adding that they're waiting for the prison to complete their paperwork.
California Department of Corrections spokeswoman Terry Thornton confirmed to the AP that the license had been transmitted to the prison.
Thornton said each California prison designates an employee to be a marriage coordinator who processes paperwork for an inmate's request to be wed. In most cases, she said, the Department of Corrections approves of such weddings as "a tool of family reunification and social development." But Manson is a unique case.
Burton said the wedding might have happened earlier if Manson did not have "some situations" at the prison.
Convicted killer Charles Manson is seen during a parole hearing in California in 1986. Photo: AP
Thornton explained that in February, Manson had three violations for possession of a weapon, threatening staff and refusal to provide a urine sample. Further details on the violations were not immediately available.
Burton said the prison holds marriages on the first Saturday of each month and she expects to be married in an inmate visiting room at the prison.
Thornton confirmed that Manson can have a wedding at the prison and invite an officiant from outside the prison to perform the ceremony.
Manson and his prospective spouse also would be allowed to invite ten guests who are not inmates.
He and two followers, Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel, remain imprisoned. Another follower, Susan Atkins, died of cancer behind bars. Other members of the Manson "family" still behind bars are Charles "Tex" Watson, Bruce Davis and Robert Beausoleil.
Manson, Watson and the women were convicted in the gruesome killings of Tate, the wife of director Roman Polanski, and four others at her estate on Aug. 9, 1969, and grocers Leno and Rosemary LaBianca who were killed the following night.
Manson is not eligible for parole until 2027. He has been a habitual criminal and spent most of his life in prison.
Throbbing Member
She's actually cute. Gold digger!
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
That is the way jesus intended marriage. Between a loving man and woman. #blessed
Captain Rustleboots
Go ahead...use the pic lmao
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
I don't know what you're referencing, my dear.
Edit: Oh, wait... That CFMB photo?
Reply With Quote
