Verizon May Have Stronger Case in Netflix Latency Issue, Technology Observers Say
Verizon has proved its case better than Netflix has so far in the debate on interconnection problems, some technology experts said in interviews. A review from Verizon argued that there’s no congestion on Verizon’s network and that Netflix “did not make arrangements to deliver this massive amount of traffic through connections that can handle it,” Verizon said last week in a blog post (CD July 11 p18). Last month Netflix stopped sending messages attributing video latency issues to ISPs (CD June 18 p7). Another observer questioned alleged claims that Verizon has no say in how interconnection points work. Netflix had no comment.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The information that has come to light is not in Netflix’s favor, said Jeff Eisenach, director of the American Enterprise Institute’s Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy. “What seems more apparent is that it’s all about Netflix trying to get a better commercial deal in the marketplace,” he said. Anytime there’s an interconnection agreement requiring parties to collaborate and make the system work “you're going to have the potential for finger pointing,” he said. When looking at the allegations that Netflix has made and “the information that we know so far, it looks like Netflix has really not proved their case, and it seems unlikely that they're going to prove their case.” The FCC is gathering a lot of data on these counts and it’s important to wait for its decision, he said, referring to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s decision to collect information on interconnection and peering arrangements (CD June 16 p1).
From a technical standpoint, Verizon is correct, said Don Bowman, chief technology officer at network policy control solutions company Sandvine. Verizon is saying, there are “lots of ways to get to my house, why are you always taking the road that’s busy?” he said. Verizon and Comcast might have 10 to 20 public peering interconnection points to other types of ISPs, like Cogent or Level 3, he said. It’s always the sender or content provider, not the receiver, that picks the interconnection point, he said.
The direction that money flows also makes it complex, Bowman said. Verizon pays money to ISPs, like Cogent and Level 3, to receive traffic, he said. Content providers also pay these ISPs, he said. “It’s possible that Netflix is picking the one that’s cheapest for them and most expensive for Verizon."
While both companies make legitimate points, the ISPs probably have the higher ground, said Doug Brake, a telecom policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Netflix moves a large amount of data and underscores that “settlement free peering doesn’t make sense,” he said in an email. Peering allowed networks to exchange roughly balanced traffic “settlement free because they were presumably getting about equal value and expending roughly the same cost to provision that capacity,” he said. Netflix’s traffic is overwhelmingly flowing one way, and the costs are unbalanced, he said. “There are real costs with provisioning capacity, and perhaps more importantly, these networks need some certainty that Netflix is going to stick around.” Comcast and Verizon “are being reasonable in wanting a contract and certainty before sinking investment,” he added.
There still is no clear answer as to which entity causes the congestion, said Sherwin Siy, Public Knowledge vice president-legal affairs. Verizon is shifting the discussion of where the congestion occurs, “without answering the question of who is causing the congestion -- or even who is best suited to fix it,” he said in an email. Verizon emphasizes that it’s Netflix’s choice to use particular interconnection points, “as though Verizon has no say in how those interconnection points work,” he said.
Transparency for consumers is important, but business dynamics come into play, some observers said. The ability for consumer watchdogs, like bloggers, to run diagnostics and “be able to understand what’s happening in the network is a very healthy thing,” he said. However, the call of some observers to make interconnection agreements public can be a very dangerous step, and could have exactly the opposite of its intended effect, he said. For example, tariff filing requirements for long-distance services at the FCC helped facilitate coordination of prices, he said. “Prices didn’t fall as far as they could have had prices been secret.”
The consumer has no influence or control over how Netflix comes into Verizon, Bowman said. “Consumers knowing about it and being enraged about it would be interesting, but it won’t make much difference.”