Netflix Patiently Explains To FCC Commissioner Pai That CDNs Are Perfectly Normal, Not Diabolical 'Fast Lanes'
from the please-take-my-faux-outrage-seriously dept
We've been noting lately how a concerted effort is afoot by big broadband ISPs, their think tanks, and some sector analysts to vilify Netflix because of the company's outspoken positions on usage caps, broadband competition and most recently interconnection and Title II. As such, you might have noticed the media has seen a noted spike in studies, reports and analysis declaring that ISPs are simply misunderstood. These studies will all inform you that if you look at the data in just the right way -- you'll realize that Netflix is a really bad guy and a dirty freeloader -- and it's Comcast, Verizon and AT&T that really have your best interests at heart.This new push to discredit Netflix culminated recently with a bizarre letter (pdf) sent to Netflix by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai. In the letter, Pai proclaims he was "surprised to learn" that Netflix was being hypocritical and nefarious on net neutrality because it: (a) refused to join a new streaming video coalition spearheaded by Comcast and Netflix critics; and (b) operates a content delivery network (CDN). As we noted at the time, both allegations are more than a little stupid. Pai's allegations that Netflix's Open Connect CDN constitutes an unfair "fast lane" was particularly silly, since CDNs benefit consumers, ISPs and content companies alike.
In a response letter to Pai (pdf) sent last week, Netflix has to carefully spell out how the company's free and entirely voluntary CDN, like all CDNs, caches content on the inside edge of the ISP network, making content delivery more efficient for everybody involved:
"Open Connect is not a fast lane. Open Connect does not prioritize Netflix data. Open Connect uses 'best efforts' Internet services into and out of its content caches. When an ISP asks Netflix to localize an Open Connect cache within its network, it does not disadvantage other Internet content. To the contrary, Open Connect helps ISPs reduce costs and better manage congestion, which results in a better Internet experience for all end users. Only ISPs can speed up or slow down data that flow over their last mile. When Netflix directly interconnects with an ISP, Netflix data does not travel faster than other Internet content—unless an ISP is artificially constraining capacity to other data sources."This will, of course, result in the usual complaints about how government employees don't understand tech, but as a former regulatory lawyer for Verizon, Pai knows full well what a CDN is and that it doesn't violate neutrality. He's just apparently helping the industry's Netflix vilification effort, and feeding the partisan neutrality grist mill some calorie-free angst nuggets. Again, none of this is to say that Netflix doesn't do stupid things, but recent efforts to demonize Netflix by an industry with thirty years of anti-competitive behavior under its belt are getting more than a little obnoxious.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aji pai, cdn, content delivery network, fast lane, fast lanes, fcc, net neutrality, open internet
Companies: netflix
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: crayons
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: crayons
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A life lesson for Pai
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
None of this would be necessary if the ISP's didn't intentionally let their interconnection points degrade in an attempt to squeeze money out of content providers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't think any regulatory lawyer from Verizon knows what a CDN is. I think the point to be made is that they SHOULD know what CDN is...but we all know they don't. I think that's been made pretty obvious from the onset of this debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Rose by Any other Name
Granted, the "fast lane" metaphor has to get stretched pretty-much beyond recognition to cover both a proprietary-CDN *and* last-mile packet prioritization, but the conceit that the Internet and the Interstate are all that similar will only get you so far before it falls apart anyway.
That being said, Pai's concerns seemed fairly clear ("hey, aren't you guys basically going out and building a different kind of 'fast lane' for yourselves by embracing CDNs that only you can create, and only your traffic can benefit from?"), and Netflix's response seemed pretty clear too ("don't call it a 'fast lane', but yeah, we're pursuing the CDN solution that we think will work best for Netflix.")
A fair question might be, "if we want the FCC to ensure a 'level playing' field for content creators to get their content delivered to the masses, and regulating last-mile traffic prioritization is a reasonable way to do it, why *shouldn't* the FCC also jump right in and steer the industry towards a maximally equitable CDN technology?"
(For me, the answer to that last question would be "have you *met* the FCC?!")
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A Rose by Any other Name
If the ISP's weren't letting their interconnection points get clogged up, a CDN would be unnecessary at this time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't even understand the attacks
It's simple as pie: the Netflix CDN takes Netflix traffic off the Internet backbones. That's all. It does not make anything faster or slower. It removes the Netflix traffic.
It's like the ISPs offer super-sanitary swimming pools where the sewage treatment can't actually keep up with the demand, and Netflix offers to use its own private toilets (given the space) instead of pissing in the water like everybody else. And everybody shouts down Netflix because do they think they are entitled to cleaner water than the rest?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A Rose by Any other Name
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Crayon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't even understand the attacks
A detention pond that captures storm water to feed it slowly back into the system lessening the load of a storm event to the treatment plant and making the sewers less prone to overflowing.
The CDN server (detention pond) is slowly filled with commonly needed data that it feeds out to local users. The users of other internet services use the network (sanitary sewer) that isn't overwhelmed by netflix traffic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If Pai really thinks this is a 'fast lane', imagine the fit he'd pitch if he knew about Akamai Technologies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
To continue to use icky car analogies, CDNs are not "fast lanes" to a storefront. They're more like building a new storefront in your neighborhood. No fast lane, but you get there quicker because you don't have to travel as far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Waste of time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A Rose by Any other Name
I can sort of see the logic there. I mean, it's not like "treating all bits equally" makes any sense as a policy objective in its own right; it has to be in service of some higher-layer/more-socially-relevant objective (encouraging innovation/free-expression/etc...), and "making all content equally accessible" (that's my overstated version of it) sounds about as good as anything else.
Personally, I wouldn't want the FCC weighing in on how CDNs ought to work, or who should deploy them, or where. The market / industry / the Internet (whatever we want to call it) is in the middle of adapting to the relatively recent avalanche of streaming video traffic, and CDNs seem like they'll play an important role in that. But the FCC stepping in now and making decisions (assuming that this issue gets past the FCC/Netflix pen-pal stage) about what role CDNs will play, and what technical architecture they'll use reads like exactly the sort of "gub'mint FUBARing emergent technologies" scenario that (my kind of) net-neutrality opponents worry about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A Rose by Any other Name
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: A Rose by Any other Name
This is very, very different from ISPs deliberately slowing your packets or prioritizing whoever because it got money from them. Netflix is improving their own infra and location to achieve better speeds and reliability with investments, not by paying some sort of 'levy' to get VIP treatment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Waste of time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You cant search for information that MIGHT contradict what they and their "associates" beam into millions of households 24/7
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Rose by Any other Name
[ link to this | view in thread ]
regarding NetFlix
[ link to this | view in thread ]