Thanks. This article here about the background to the Comcast deal has very interesting information:

[http://www.cnet.com/news/rereading-the-tea-leaves-in-the-netflix-comcast-deal/](http://www.cnet.com/news/rereading-the-tea -leaves-in-the-netflix-comcast-deal/)

As far as I understand the hints correctly, it is about the following:

Netflix “used to” have to pay money to various backbone providers to connect their services (which is of course legitimate and business as usual). By setting up their own AS2906 network, they became operators of their own transit network, so to speak. They probably did this because, firstly, they have better control over the routing of the video streams (i.e. better control over the quality that reaches the customer), and secondly, Netflix is ​​simply cheaper than a third-party network operator to pay for the data transport or connection.

The Comcast deal probably simply means that Netflix pays Comcast money so that Comcast connects directly to the Netflix Open Connect network (AS2906). This means that Netflix can, so to speak, deliver the video streams “directly” to the Comcast network, as mentioned in the first article. Apparently the costs negotiated with Comcast are no higher than the eliminated fees that they would otherwise have had to pay to other transit network operators. That would then make some sense and would probably be in the gray area of ​​the topic of “network neutrality”. If you see Netflix as a transit network operator in this case, that’s fine in principle.

Show original language (German)

So that’s where we stand now. Swisscom refuses to create a meaningful peering for Netflix traffic. What is the consequence? At peak times at the latest, the Netflix streams are treated as second-class traffic, i.e. they are routed via the peering point that is most suitable for Swisscom. This can then result in the “end point” of this peering suddenly being closer to the USA than to Europe in terms of data traffic. So you suddenly get your video stream from Netflix from the USA instead of from a closer Netflix server in Europe.

I think that’s not entirely technically correct. Swisscom cannot decide “how” the data comes to you. The sender still decides. Basically, without direct peering, traffic usually comes from a transit provider, like any other traffic. Of course, it could also be that this transit provider is somewhat overloaded (e.g. the peering with Netflix), or the port from the transit provider to Swisscom.

But basically a great article, thank you.

For further information and how peering etc. works on a business level, what tricks there are and generally good information about it, here is a great book called “The 2014 Internet Peering Playbook”:

[ Connecting%20to%20the%20Core%20of%20the%20Internet&qid=1455346661&ref_=sr_1_1&s=digital-text&sr=1- 1]( 20Connecting%20to%20the%20Core%20of%20the%20Internet&qid=1455346661&ref_=sr_1_1&s=digital-text&sr=1-1)

Show original language (German)

Yes, Swisscom has an influence on this. If it refuses to accept more data volume at a peering point because it violates its 2:1 policy, then the data traffic from the sender will inevitably only reach Swisscom via “detours”. Ultimately, it is up to Swisscom whether it allows the “direct” route at the preferred peering point or rejects the data traffic, or throttles it through traffic shaping, which then usually triggers load balancing methods at the sender, which then inevitably route the traffic via other peering points .

Show original language (German)

As far as I know, we’re not blocking anything. And we are also rather surprised at how traffic is routed at certain times. Whatever the purpose is…

But I’m glad that this topic is being discussed more objectively, even if there is still the undertone of “evil” Swisscom. Unfortunately I can’t say much about it for legal reasons, even if it doesn’t meet with much understanding.

What I can say is that we won’t block a service just because it supposedly represents competition. That doesn’t make any sense at all. This doesn’t win you a customer; rather, the opposite happens. Everyone should use the offer whatever they want.

Maybe the situation will calm down again. It cannot be in a provider’s interest that their product cannot be used in the best possible quality. We’ll see.

Show original language (German)

Well, dear @Anonymous… then please explain why Swisscom refuses to enter into a peering with Netflix’s AS? Then exactly these routing problems would be solved. It would be free and technically feasible for any apprentice to implement in the near future.

Oh, I can explain it to you: Swisscom wants additional money for data volume that has actually already been paid for by end customers. This is called cashing in twice. And it is also a violation of net neutrality. Caused by your conscious passivity. Yes, correct, you are probably not actively blocking anything, pure passivity in not wanting to solve a simple issue is enough for you to achieve your goal, which directly discriminates against a competitor. Quite coincidentally…

Sorry, the facts are just what they are.

Show original language (German)

As I said, it’s a chicken and egg problem.

The technically correct view also depends on the point of view.

Of course, Netflix could certainly survive in a system where they have to pay money to all the highwaymen. Swisscom is also one of these highways.

The situation in Switzerland is such that they have found good providers who have established an open peering. So not all providers accept the methods of hell in the US!

Since you don’t want to create direct peering, you shouldn’t be surprised if the packets take different paths than intended. How can you even commemorate something like that? Sign a contract with a transit provider and hope everything is fine? OMFG!!!

It would be fair if Netflix distributed the costs of transit according to the user. As a Swisscom customer, you would have to pay more with an unreasonable provider than would be the case with Sunrise, green.ch and init7. (I’m talking about the fees charged to Netflix. Swisscom’s fees are otherwise already too high for the service offered).

Of course it’s not practical. Which brings us back to the simple option of open peering, as the others have already done!

When it comes to being able to create connections to the Internet, Swisscom is a small company with no power. When it comes to feeding traffic into the system, they play a big role and offer all providers to pay. (If Netflix didn’t have to pay anything now, a whole house of cards would collapse… Google etc. would quickly come knocking.) Now Swisscom is still primarily a provider. But I also want to get more and more into the OTT business. How is partly a mystery to me, since in principle no product from this division has been completed yet. But that is a different topic. But if Swisscom is an OTT provider, you will definitely hear again: “Oh, the other providers are all offering to pay us for the traffic. We as a small Swisscom can’t do anything about that.”

How the wind blows. The only thing they have in common is that this wind stinks!

Show original language (German)

He who sows the wind will reap the storm.

As a rule, it doesn’t go down well if you both think your customers are stupid and also treat them as stupid.

Show original language (German)

@sirupflex wrote:
Yes, Swisscom has an influence on it. If it refuses to accept more data volume at a peering point because it violates its 2:1 policy, then the data traffic from the sender will inevitably only reach Swisscom via “detours”. Ultimately, it is up to Swisscom whether it allows the “direct” route at the preferred peering point or rejects the data traffic, or throttles it through traffic shaping, which then usually triggers load balancing methods at the sender, which then inevitably route the traffic via other peering points .

Yes, it comes in a roundabout way, of course direct would be best. But I still doubt that Swisscom has too little transit capacity, regardless of where the traffic is transferred to SC… and the fact that SC specifically throttles has already been denied several times. Unfortunately, those who could best answer the topic (SC/Netflix) do not want to comment on it (technically). Same game with UPC and Netflix… 😞

Show original language (German)

But I’m very surprised that you consider “too little transit capacity” to be “unlikely”:

  • The transit/resp. Peering capacity (or lack thereof) is the number 1 reason Internet business stalls. How come? Because business is done here. This is where the money flows (or not). This is how internet business works.
  • In the cases mentioned in the USA (Comcast), this was exactly the case, just like with every other provider. Comcast wanted money from Netflix to address the bottleneck in peering capacity. After - to put it simply - Netflix had transferred money, the peering capacity was adjusted and direct peering was also arranged with the Netflix AS, and the values ​​suddenly went higher than ever before. Which proves that Comcast had already kept peering capacities at the lower limit before the Netflix problem became visible.
  • As Fredy Künzler had already written: “Many large providers (e.g. Deutsche Telekom, Swisscom, UPC…) keep the interconnection capacities passive-aggressively tight, i.e. the capacities are becoming increasingly narrower because bandwidth usage is constantly increasing. Upgrades only take place if the content provider pays for them, and usually not too little (there is no market for this interconnection - the provider can i.e. charging monopoly prices). If payment is not made, the data is stuck in a traffic jam, and this is directly visible with videos. With this behavior, the big providers are taking their customers hostage, so to speak.”
    F.Künzler is certainly not a “neutral” person here, but what he writes is neither a secret nor a great insight from himself, but rather well-known Internet business.
  • You yourself wrote “Yes, it comes via a detour, direct would of course be best”. So you agree with me that there has to be a detour. Have you ever thought about why it comes about in a roundabout way? I have already given the answer in previous postings. At the “preferred” peering point, Swisscom only allows a certain amount of bandwidth or only pays the transit network operator for a certain amount of bandwidth. If more traffic arrives, throttling generally occurs automatically (traffic shaping). This is not a throttling in the sense of a violation of network neutrality per se, but a general throttling caused by business agreements due to a lack of capacity. This has hardly any noticeable impact on “normal” Internet traffic, as long as the “traffic jam” is not too big. With video streaming, however, this leads directly to an adaptive video stream being switched down. Or, depending on the situation, re-routing via a different peering point, with the unpleasant side effect that the Netflix stream can then often no longer come from a nearby CDN but, for example, from the USA, which in turn is very likely to result in low quality video -Bandwidths leads. But that’s not Netflix’s fault, because Netflix has no influence on that. But Swisscom does, thanks to its peering bandwidth planning.
  • It is the “art” of an ISP to keep peering bandwidths as tight as possible to save as much money as possible while still providing customers with satisfactory Internet service. With the advent of video streaming, this bar has simply been raised, because “a little undercapacity” directly leads to poor service, for the reasons mentioned above

And last but not least, the 100th repetition of an obvious fact: If Swisscom really only had the customer’s best interest in mind, it would have created a peering with Netflix AS a long time ago. This would not only relieve the burden on the other peering agreements, but Netflix would also have transit routing directly under its own control. This would dispel all the ominous “oh, strange things happen with routing out there” claims. And should there really be routing problems, then Netflix as the AS operator would really be directly responsible (and would certainly be directly interested in fixing it themselves within the shortest possible time). The publicly visible fact is: Swisscom does not have peering with Netflix AS.

By the way, the question was raised on Facebook as to whether the problem could be a lack of upload capacity at Netflix. Based on the known facts, this is extremely unlikely. Firstly, Netflix would be doing a lot of damage to themselves because they only make money with smooth video streams. Secondly, in such a case, not only Swisscom and UPC customers in particular would have a massive problem, but many Netflix customers across all ISPs would have similar problems. But that is clearly not the case.

Show original language (German)

If you’re interested, here’s Fredy Künzler’s talk “Buffering Sucks” at the CCC Congress last December: [ 3DTfdxwzDvobU&h=rAQGr4USR) (or synchronized: [ 3DvMqETldXMTw&h=uAQFkZ1OA))

PS: People have already asked on Facebook whether I am Fredy Künzler. No, I’m not, I don’t know him either and I have no connection to Init7. I am just a normal Swisscom customer who has enough specialist knowledge through my job to realize that as a Swisscom customer I am currently being treated inappropriately, to put it politically correctly. Since on the one hand I am being sidelined by the Swisscom helpdesk and I also have to read very questionable statements from Swisscom and the UPC in the media and in forums (again formulated in a politically correct way), I see it as necessary, a few to place factual connections in this context.

Show original language (German)
  • tdu likes that.

Dear @Anonymous

I appreciate the fact that a Swisscom manager is open to open discussion and do not consider it a given that this would even happen on Saturday. Thanks.

@Anonymous wrote:

As far as I know, we don’t block anything. And we are also rather surprised at how traffic is routed at certain times. Whatever the purpose is…

Be it the routing policy or the peering policy, the customer cannot influence either. A technical analysis and background information directly from SC would be very interesting. I can hardly imagine that you / your species cannot analyze and understand this… I suspect that there is a power game going on between Netfilx and Swisscom, which of course you cannot bring to the forums. Both companies would have to be aware that customers on both sides are affected and will potentially leave Netflix or Swisscom in the long term.

But I’m glad that this topic is being discussed more objectively, even if there is still the undertone of “evil” Swisscom. Unfortunately I can’t say much about it for legal reasons, even if it doesn’t meet with much understanding.

The background information would certainly help the discussion to be more objective and less polemical.

:smileywink:

What exactly is the reason that a Netflix server is not located somewhere in Switzerland and can be used by several ISPs on favorable and fair terms?

What I can say is that we don’t block a service just because it supposedly represents competition. That doesn’t make any sense at all. This doesn’t win you a customer; rather, the opposite happens. Everyone should use the offer whatever they want.

First of all, I believe you that nothing is actively blocked. But this is exactly where customer understanding stops and the hairs on the back of your neck slowly stand up. Passive aggressive, as has already been aptly formulated here in the forum. Here too, the background information would have a calming and more cooperative effect.

Maybe the situation will calm down again. It cannot be in a provider’s interest that their product cannot be used in the best possible quality. We’ll see.

Wait and drink tea? Do you really think that’s the solution? And what exactly happens in the meantime? What makes you confident that waiting will solve the problem? So I remain skeptical.

:smileyfrustrated:

No offense - I look forward to the continued factual discussion. And the desired, directly transmitted background information.

:smileyhappy:

And I

Show original language (German)

@WarmRed wrote:
Unfortunately, only UPC Cablecom was torn apart in the media, which is a circumstance that actually needs to be corrected.

Yes, that annoyed me too.

But I’m also just a simple cable monkey who creates the connections and connections. I’m good at that.

As you can now see on the Facebook page, so-called influencers are now apparently taking on the matter.

Show original language (German)

UPC or Liberty Global now has a peering to Netflix.

Since this is a large European network, it could even be that the Level3 Transit will be relieved, which would improve the quality, for example. Swisscom could get better again.

Show original language (German)

@Tux0ne wrote:

UPC or Liberty Global now has a peering to Netflix.

Since this is a large European association, it could even be that the Level3 Transit will be relieved, which would improve the quality, for example. Swisscom could get better again.

Cool, thanks for the info. :smileysurprised: Then I’ll wait eagerly for the February statistics…

Show original language (German)

Let’s hope, if that’s true, that Swisscom doesn’t believe that others will solve their problems. In the “worst case” the quality improves “a little bit” to the point that everyone now says “at least”. And the solution to the real problem is being put off for a long time. Swisscom must now finally enter into a peering with Netflix, otherwise it will be endless suffering.

Let’s do an overview:

  • Init7 has peering plus cache servers in its own network
  • Improware uses Init7’s cache servers
  • Quickline is high up in the Netflix report, but I didn’t find any information about direct peering, but probably uses direct peering via another provider (Init7?), or simply has enough capacity on their other peerings
  • Sunrise is peered with Netflix
  • green.ch has a peering with Netflix
  • Liberty Global / UPC is peered with Netflix
  • Other providers such as Citycable Lausanne, SIG in Geneva, iWay, vtx.ch also have peering

This means that practically all major providers have taken action.

And Swisscom? Well, she doesn’t do anything, just shrugs her shoulders and rambles about “weird routing out there”… and goes back to sleep. This is apparently what customer orientation looks like at Swisscom. It’s probably time to switch to another provider who has recognized the signs of the times.

Show original language (German)
  • tdu likes that.

I also find it interesting that Guido points to Deutsche Telekom, one of the providers that Küenzler has been pointing to for a long time (one wonders when the topic will pop up with them). Ultimately, it makes little sense if Netflix delivers the traffic to Switzerland, but for connections to Swisscom customers this is “swept” via Telekom.

Show original language (German)

Good morning,

It is repeatedly pointed out that this is a customer help customer forum. Personally, I am of the opinion that the whole discussion is now at a level that no longer has anything to do with it. Write your opinion directly to Swisscom and leave the other 99% alone. It’s a shame about the otherwise good forum.

PK39 wishes you a nice week

Show original language (German)