[Discuss] Https - the solution to net neutrality and ISP monopolies

[tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)]

Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
> Recently I noticed, that all our video streams...Buffering every 1-15
> minutes...
> 
> So I got to thinking, could encryption be used to circumvent greedy
> ISP's systematically? 

No. Bill Bogstad covered most of this, but I recommend doing a bit of
reading on the technical side of what's going on with the
Netflix-Comcast and Netflix-Verizon disputes.

Both cases are only indirectly about Netflix. They're really about the
"last mile" ISPs feuding with the backbone provider. In the Comcast case
it was Cogent and in the Verizon case it is Level 3. Netflix just
happens to be the traffic source that is pushing the peering point past
capacity, but it could just as easily be YouTube.

Usually these peering agreements get settled quietly, with one side
paying for an equipment upgrade, or one side paying a fee to compensate
for an asymmetric traffic flow.

Lately these disagreements have gotten public. Level 3 has been pointing
fingers at Verizon, saying they are refusing to upgrade a peering point.
Level 3 points out that Verizon actually has most of the needed hardware
in place. They just need to add a few 10 GB cards and some patch cords,
something Level 3 even offered to pay for. Verizon isn't saying
publicly, but they're holding out for an ongoing payment from either
Level 3, or an ongoing payment for a direct peering relationship with
Netfix, as happened in the Comcast dispute.


> So I VPN'd into work...and then we can watch it, no problem.  It's
> the same content, being delivered over the same network, only it's
> encrypted and hidden from FiOS's routers.  There's no other
> explanation...

Actually, the encryption is not the explanation at all. It's just that
the VPN packets are coincidently traveling through a different peering
point to get to your employer, and then your employer's ISP is
apparently not using congested peering points to extort content providers.

Several months back when news broke of Comcast "throttling" Netflix, the
proof then was also someone using their employer's VPN to bypass the
congested peering points.

A VPN might be a suitable workaround to your ISP's bad behavior, but
your results may vary if your VPN provider doesn't consistently use
backbone providers that are different from the ones your ISP is fighting
with.


> If the content is distributed by a content distribution network, and
> LOTS of services use those networks...

Netfix is not entirely blameless here. They're on the right side of the
principle, but as a practical matter they could avoid these problems by
distributing their content across multiple backbone providers and 3rd
party CDNs.

See:
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/03/netflix-level-3-telling-half-story-wont-detail-changes-want-net-neutrality.html


Their preferred solution is to use their own CDN, which requires
installing servers within the ISPs network. Some ISPs (like Comcast)
have refused to do this. (They probably view it as encroachment by a
competitor, because we have a broken broadband business model in the US
where ISPs are also content providers.)

Netflix may intentionally be letting the congestion happen in hopes it
will pressure the ISP into installing Netflix's CDN servers. Or they may
be using a single backbone provider (with respect to that ISP) for
purely economic reasons.

Ultimately, though, your ISP is more wrong than Netflix. You asked for a
packet, and they failed to deliver. If you ask for too many packets,
they can throttle you or have you upgrade to a higher tier of service,
but they have no business "making a collect call" on your behalf and
charging the party you requested the packet from.

Cory Doctorow has written up one of the best analogies of network
neutrality:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/28/internet-service-providers-charging-premium-access

  The ISPs say they only want to get paid for the use of their service,
  but the problem is, they're already getting paid. You pay your
  internet bill every month. Netflix, Google, Yahoo...all pay their
  internet bills every month. The ISPs aren't seeking to get paid,
  they're seeking to get paid twice: once by you, and a second time
  because you are now their hostage...

  ...you pay for your phone service every month. The pizza place on the
  corner also pays for its phone service every month. When you want to
  order a pizza from Joe's Corner Pizzeria, you call their number. If
  their phone isn't engaged, it rings and you get to place your order.
  If they get more orders than they can handle on one line, they buy a
  second line, a third, even 10 lines to take their orders. Provided one
  of those lines is free, your call goes through to someone when you
  ring.

  But what if your phone company decided that the way to bring in higher
  profits was to go around to all the pizza places and shake them down
  for "premium" access to "their" customers?
  ...
  The thing is, Joe's is paying for its lines. You're paying for your
  line. The phone company exists solely to connect people to the numbers
  they dial.
  ...
  And the networks are not the carriers' alone. The carriers may pay to
  dig the trenches and drop the conduit and copper, but they run their
  wires through our dirt. If carriers had to negotiate for every linear
  metre of roadway, pavement, and car-park in order to run their wires,
  the legal bills alone would bankrupt them, to say nothing of the
  actual fees land owners and cities would be able extract from them.
  We're talking trillions, here. The only viable way to build a telcoms
  network infrastructure is by securing a priceless public subsidy in
  the form of free access to rights-of-way.

  The ISPs want to have it both ways.


> Https - the solution to net neutrality and ISP monopolies

The real answer is that you should cease doing business with an ISP that
fails to upgrade its peering points to meet demand. Only with a
sufficient quantity of users canceling subscriptions and citing poor
performance will they ever change their behavior. (Seems not very likely
the FCC will intervene.)

The big question is who can you switch to? I happen to be shopping for a
new home office ISP (see other thread), and although I have the luxury
of multiple choices, they're all bad. Both Comcast and Verizon are
playing these peering games. RCN?

Recent news showed researchers achieving 1 Gbps over DSL, but that came
with qualifiers. They had a really short local loop (tens of meters) and
bonded several circuits. Even if they started deploying this, what are
the chances any telco would bother investing in this around here where
the incumbents already have fiber and coax installed. The only way this
would fly is if there were neighborhood concentrator boxes already in
place (something I don't think exists in the Greater Boston area), and
open to third parties through regulation. It's still doubtful some
smaller competitor would foot the bill to install new DSL line cards in
those boxes.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
The Perl Shop, Newton, MA, USA
"Predictable On-demand Perl Consulting."
http://www.theperlshop.com/