backtop


Print 67 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Apr 5 at 11:10 AM

The FCC won't allow net neutrality to regulate the way companies like Netflix connect to the Internet

Netflix was hoping for an end to internet tolls by calling to expand the scope of net neutrality, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) isn't having any of it. 
 
According to National Journal, the FCC denied Netflix's call to expand net neutrality so that it covered companies and their methods of connecting to the internet. 
 
More specifically, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wanted the FCC to regulate the way companies like Netflix connect to the internet so that they wouldn't have to pay tolls to other companies (like Comcast, for example) to make sure its video gets to customers quickly and without any issues. 
 
"Peering and interconnection are not under consideration in the Open Internet proceeding, but we are monitoring the issues involved to see if any action is needed in any other context," said an FCC spokesperson.
 
Netflix agreed last month to pay Comcast to ensure that its movies and TV shows stream easily without traffic jams on Comcast's broadband network. While it's not clear how much Netflix is paying Comcast, the new deal will span several years and Comcast said it would connect to Netflix's servers at data centers operated by other companies. 
 
But Netflix wanted this to be a one-time deal until it managed to push laws in place that eliminated these tolls. 


Having to pay Comcast means Netflix could end up having to pay tolls to other providers like Verizon and AT&T -- and there's no way these tolls come cheap. The streaming company already pays high prices for content licensing from content providers, and having this extra fee on the table (and potentially from many big cable companies) would really put a damper on Netflix's cash flow. 

"Some big [Internet service providers] are extracting a toll because they can—they effectively control access to millions of consumers and are willing to sacrifice the interests of their own customers to press Netflix and others to pay," said Hastings. 
 
"If this kind of leverage is effective against Netflix, which is pretty large, imagine the plight of smaller services today and in the future."

Big cable got even bigger this year when Comcast acquired Time Warner Cable (TWC) in February for $45.2 billion USD. Comcast has about 25 percent share of the broadband market while TWC controls around 12 percent. As far as the subscription cable TV market goes, Comcast currently controls roughly 19 percent and TWC controls around 9 percent. Together, the pair would control about a third of the markets (37 percent of broadband; 28 percent of cable TV). 

Source: National Journal



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

ISP
By p05esto on 4/1/2014 2:56:00 PM , Rating: 3
ISP companies are evil, I hate every one of them. Greedy bastards and the speed is nothing special, way down the list and very little access to remote(ish) areas of the US. It's all about money, people in the country can hardly get decent speeds.




RE: ISP
By spamreader1 on 4/1/2014 3:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Much as I hate to let you in on this little secret in the US. It's almost always about the Benjamins.


RE: ISP
By Cypherdude1 on 4/1/2014 5:52:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
ISP companies are evil, I hate every one of them. Greedy bastards and the speed is nothing special, way down the list and very little access to remote(ish) areas of the US. It's all about money, people in the country can hardly get decent speeds.
I live in a small city. I pay for and get 60 Mbps. The cable guy told me, because I live away from the big city, I get >60 Mbps almost all the time. The last time I tested, I got 65 Mbps. I'm viewing an Amazon Prime video right now in HD. The video only uses 1.1 MB/s (8.8 Mbps). I uploaded a very large 8.8GB video to YouTube in a short time (I think it was 3.5 hours, can't remember): youtu.be/pwNJto6VWE8

I don't know why people make a big deal about Netflix streaming. Almost all the new major movies and most of the TV content is only available on DVD. Why they report on Netflix streaming all the time, I don't know.


RE: ISP
By spamreader1 on 4/1/2014 6:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
You are extremely lucky. Where I live we have 3 options. 56k, cellular (LTE luckily, but extremely bandwidth limited), and satellite (really high latency, and again bandwidth limited)

Local Cable company just laughs and uses 4 letter words anytime someone out here even asks if they ever plan on deploying cable in the area.

Can't really complain too much, they're in it to make money, and they see high costs with low returns out here.


RE: ISP
By StevoLincolnite on 4/1/2014 6:36:37 PM , Rating: 3
The irony is, when the US entered recession, the government instead of spending trillions bailing out failing companies, could have instead built a fiber network instead.
Which would have created more jobs and new business's (I.E. tons of E-Business's) much like how Australia went about it.
Of course, building a fiber network wouldn't cost a trillion bucks...
Everyone would then have caught up to the 21st century!

The other advantage with having fiber everywhere is that it can be used as back-haul for cellular, so less dead spots and more speed for your 3G and 4G networks.

On the flip side, a new ISP or two could have also been created providing much needed competition.

I just don't get it from a foreigners perspective.


RE: ISP
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/14, Rating: 0
RE: ISP
By McGaiden on 4/1/2014 10:48:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Everyone here knows I'm not a fan on the "stimulus"


The problem with the Obama stimulus was that it was too little and misdirected. Too many tax cuts, but that's what you had to do to appease the retarded GOP.

Most people don't understand economics; they don't understand the concept of atrophy, or of long-term potential economic growth. Any stimulus package has to be seen from a 10-20 year horizon. And anyone who did the basic math knew that the stimulus package was 3-5 times as small as it should have been in comparison to the massive US economy.

And in addition, debt would also have been smaller over the long run, because employment/growth would have brought it down much quicker and repaid it.

As for your other rant:

quote:
I think you're just using this as an excuse to America-bash as you so love to do


This just sounds like jingoistic "patriotism". The "drill baby drill", pro-Sarah Palin kind.

You're embarrassing yourself.


RE: ISP
By marvdmartian on 4/2/2014 7:35:09 AM , Rating: 4
Best line I've heard about the stimulus??

"My dog has created more shovel-ready jobs than the stimulus ever did!" ;)


RE: ISP
By gamerk2 on 4/2/2014 8:10:43 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair, the US tried to plug a loss of 3.5 Trillion in consumer spending with about 500 Billion in stimulus.

Its actually shocking the stimulus worked as good as it did, all things considered. Just look at the monthly job numbers over the 2009-2010 period:

January 2009: ~780k jobs lost
January 2010: ~100k jobs gained

The stimulus worked, but was not large enough to create any amount of long term growth. It stopped the bleeding, nothing more. The slow economic growth we have now is due to the middle class gradually ramping up spending, which as you can see is taking YEARS to have any real effect.

Hence my long standing argument that the cost of a second $500 Billion stimulus package would have been a LOT cheaper then the loss of tax revenue associated with a farther four years of stagnant economic growth.


RE: ISP
By NellyFromMA on 4/2/2014 9:00:09 AM , Rating: 3
It's WAY to early to say the Stimulus "Worked".

There's a real reason why John McCain stumped around calling it generational theft.

The after effects of the stimulus spending will not be determined by anyone right now. It will take 1 or 2 more generations to really pay that bill.

It achieved (sort of) its short term goal. The long term effects, well, they aren't looking to good when you look at the global picture... but, that remains to be seen.


RE: ISP
By sorry dog on 4/3/2014 11:17:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
To be fair, the US tried to plug a loss of 3.5 Trillion in consumer spending with about 500 Billion in stimulus.


The problem is that much of that consumer spending was done with borrowed money. Then people starting having to make payments on that borrowed money...and when some of them didn't make the payments, the credit merry go round broke down.

Can put Peter and Paul on different payment plan... but sooner or later Paul wants to be paid. Problem is the government went ahead and paid Paul off with a bunch of Uncle Sam IOU's and Peter's kids are going to get bill later on.


RE: ISP
By StevoLincolnite on 4/2/2014 8:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Reclaimer77 on April 1, 2014 at 6:45 PM Everyone here knows I'm not a fan on the "stimulus", but I must ask, what are you smoking?? I think you're just using this as an excuse to America-bash as you so love to do. Go put another shrimp on the barbie, and stfu.


Obviously our way worked, we didn't enter recession and thus by extension did not need to bail out companies.

Governments and business's should be ridiculed for miss-steps, not praised.


RE: ISP
By bsd228 on 4/1/2014 7:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The irony is, when the US entered recession, the government instead of spending trillions bailing out failing companies, could have instead built a fiber network instead. Which would have created more jobs and new business's (I.E. tons of E-Business's) much like how Australia went about it.


Just how many jobs (other than running fiber) do you really see this generating? Most people have more than enough speed to web browse, and stream video at SD resolutions, and a high percentage can stream HD. Past that, it's closer to luxury than a requirement. So I don't see the synergy you suggest.


RE: ISP
By Cypherdude1 on 4/1/2014 9:32:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The irony is, when the US entered recession, the government instead of spending trillions bailing out failing companies, could have instead built a fiber network instead.
I just don't get it from a foreigners perspective.
As an American, I am disgusted NONE of ANY of the major Wall Street CEO's were prosecuted. IMHO, this is a clear indication of just how IMHO corrupt our Federal Government is. Even Angelo Mozilo worth $600M, CEO of Countrywide Financial and Jon Corzine, who walked away with $300M, CEO of MF Global were not prosecuted. Out of all the Presidents, Obama is easily the biggest disappointment to me.

There are several documentaries you should see:
1. Inside Job , not available via Netflix Streaming, only DVD.
2. We're Not Broke .
3. Gasland I & II.
4. Split Estate .


RE: ISP
By Reclaimer77 on 4/2/2014 7:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
Dude Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison!


RE: ISP
By sorry dog on 4/3/2014 11:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
Bernie was not a Wall Street CEO.

We are talking about the large investment and mega consumer banks that had liabilities in trillions with financial derivatives and shady mortgages. We are talking about S&P and Moody's who basically should be insolvent today from lawsuits from shareholders that completely relied on their ratings that turned out to be written on single ply Charmin. The really offensive thing is that not only did these CEO's not go to jail or lose their jobs but some took home record bonuses the year after or even the same year of the meltdown hitting the fan.

God bless America!


RE: ISP
By Reclaimer77 on 4/5/2014 11:10:40 AM , Rating: 2
Those mortgages were legal, and backed by the Government though.

This IS America. We don't just throw people in jail because they did things we don't like.

Now you show me some laws the "Wall Street CEO's" broke, and hey I'm all for it. But the Left seems to think we should just throw people in jail because they have more money or the economy went sour.

In layman's terms; don't hate the player hate the game.


RE: ISP
By StevoLincolnite on 4/2/2014 9:06:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just how many jobs (other than running fiber) do you really see this generating? Most people have more than enough speed to web browse, and stream video at SD resolutions, and a high percentage can stream HD. Past that, it's closer to luxury than a requirement. So I don't see the synergy you suggest.


Years ago when I first bought a PC the salesman told me I had a massive 3.2Gb Hard drive and I would never need more.
Eventually the media demands made that obsolete relatively quickly.

Basically, what you think is "enough" might not be "enough" for the next big thing.

People for a time thought dial-up 56k was enough, but it would be next-to-useless with a media-rich web experience we have today, not to mention make Youtube completely and utterly useless.

Imagine having doctor consultation in 4k in your home? Hows about people setting up their own internet servers?
Imagine high-speed and cheaper access to your home PC to grab a movie while on a bus with a tablet or phone?
There are possibilities that aren't even thought of! - Years ago I never would have thought "Youtube" would exist et-all, additional bandwidth made that dream a reality.

As for Jobs, well, the USA is a very vast place, relatively competitive to Australia in terms of land-area, they budgeted fiber for 98% of the population at roughly 50 billion AUD.

Who knows what the initial job count would be, however in perspective you would need to hire a ton of contractors to dig out the cabling channels to put the cables underground, specialized vehicles for the laying of fiber which means more construction of machinery and the factories that support those.

More factories and their workers to manufacture the cables and the other networking equipment, new ISP's would come-about which would require the hiring of a heap of new staff and you get more higher-skilled workers out of the entire experience.

Americans then at the end result get cheaper internet, faster internet, reliable internet and more readily available internet because of better infrastructure and competition.


RE: ISP
By Fallen Kell on 4/3/2014 1:24:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for Jobs, well, the USA is a very vast place, relatively competitive to Australia in terms of land-area, they budgeted fiber for 98% of the population at roughly 50 billion AUD.

Who knows what the initial job count would be, however in perspective you would need to hire a ton of contractors to dig out the cabling channels to put the cables underground, specialized vehicles for the laying of fiber which means more construction of machinery and the factories that support those.


There are a few major flaws with your logic. While it is true that Australia is close to the size of the 48 continental states in the USA, its population distributions are VASTLY different. In Australia, 83% of the population live within 50km of the coast, and 86% live within an urban area. Also, it won't reach 98% of the population. It was only designed to reach 92% (basically just cover the cities and a few suburbs which would account for the 92%). It is now only expected to cover 22% of the population (not even going to reach every city), and will still cost 30 billion.

In contrast, in the USA only 79% of the population live in urban areas, and those areas are spread out across a much larger area of the country. Of those, many have extreme difficulty getting "right of ways" for additional wires to build a fiber network.


RE: ISP
By StevoLincolnite on 4/3/2014 9:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In Australia, 83% of the population live within 50km of the coast, and 86% live within an urban area. Also, it won't reach 98% of the population. It was only designed to reach 92% (basically just cover the cities and a few suburbs which would account for the 92%). It is now only expected to cover 22% of the population (not even going to reach every city), and will still cost 30 billion.


Nope the original plan was for 98%.
However, the main goal was to have all towns and cities with more than 1,000 homes to have fiber.

However, keep in mind, due to the change in governments, the fiber roll out is being canned in favor of fiber to the node which can be done cheaper, thus utilizing the current copper infrastructure with something like VDSL for the last mile.


RE: ISP
By snyper256 on 4/3/2014 12:25:31 AM , Rating: 2
I think you underestimate the innovation that is enabled by decentralized open networks like the internet.


RE: ISP
By McGaiden on 4/1/2014 10:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can't really complain too much, they're in it to make money, and they see high costs with low returns out here.


Do you know why American ISPs rape their customers?

Because people like you are willingly opening up their ass and asking for more.

"Can't really complain too much".

You're an idiot.


RE: ISP
By bug77 on 4/2/2014 6:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The video only uses 1.1 MB/s...


Considering that a single frame of uncompressed full HD video is 6MB (~2 million pixels, 3 bytes per color), you must not be getting much in the way of quality.


RE: ISP
By titanmiller on 4/1/2014 3:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
My parents live in the country. The VERY best broadband option is 3G service from Virgin Mobile. They have a grandfathered unlimited plan that gets 5GB at 1.5mbps (ideally) and then 128kbps until the end of the billing cycle. How is it that we have cities with 1gbps access and all of our rural areas are left with nothing. Google is talking about providing internet with helium balloons...to third world countries. How about filling in the gaps in the USA first!


RE: ISP
By 3DoubleD on 4/1/2014 4:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
But why should everyone else have to pay to deliver non-essential services to people who live way out in the middle-of-nowhere? They don't even deliver water or sewage to homes outside city limits.

Living in the country versus a city or town is a choice (maybe not an easy one, but no one is forcing anyone to live there). If people in the country want 1 gbps fiber, they could theoretically pay for someone to install the lines to their house to the nearest telco connection point. Honestly, if I lived in the country I'd actually consider it, although being completely disconnected would have it's own advantages.


RE: ISP
By snyper256 on 4/3/2014 12:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
Internet should be considered a Human right.


RE: ISP
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2014 4:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How is it that we have cities with 1gbps access and all of our rural areas are left with nothing.


That's like asking why cities have 30+ Starbucks Coffee's and rural areas have none or maybe 1.

Honestly was this a rhetorical question?


RE: ISP
By kingmotley on 4/1/2014 4:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
And if rural parts of the country were willing to pay to get it run, it would be. The cost per person is higher than they want to pay.


RE: ISP
By BuddyRich on 4/1/2014 5:20:28 PM , Rating: 3
Except when municipality's do it on behalf of its citizens when a telecom company won't (because its not profitable), yet those same companies lobby and try to get state ordinances banning municipal broadband...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lob...

Apparently working together for the common good is bad or something.


RE: ISP
By Jeffk464 on 4/1/2014 4:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
If I remember correctly the head of the FCC was a higher up at comcast or time warner, makes you wonder if there was a little conflict of interest.


RE: ISP
By Jeffk464 on 4/1/2014 5:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
Anyways I voted with my wallet. I just called up century link DSL and I'm officially dumping Comcast and making the switch. Comcast wants to charge me $77 for internet alone and $80 for internet plus basic cable, F-off.


RE: ISP
By Milliamp on 4/2/2014 3:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think Netflix is mad at more ISP's than Comcast. They want their connections to the Internet donated by ISP's and it doesn't sound like many of them are giving into Netflixes terms. I'm not sure if Centurylink donates links to Netflix or not but they are only 1.75M average to Netflix which is better than what Comcast was at but still far from good.


RE: ISP
By snyper256 on 4/3/2014 12:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
Because making Netflix available is a conflict of interest to cable companies.

The feds should split up the ISP and cable parts of every ISP/TV provider corporation.


RE: ISP
By FITCamaro on 4/2/2014 7:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
Says a man going through an ISP. If they're that evil, stop using their service.

I'm extremely happy with my service and the prices I pay. About the only thing cheaper is Google Fiber and it's not available where I live yet.


So then what will net neutrality protect?
By chmilz on 4/1/2014 2:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
If net neutrality doesn't protect against this, then I don't understand what would stop ISP's from just stopping all content from going through without paying tolls.

Am I not getting something?




RE: So then what will net neutrality protect?
By karimtemple on 4/1/2014 3:15:46 PM , Rating: 1
Net neutrality is about packets. This is about traffic. Related, but different.

Technically, philosophically, the situation is wrong. The customers pay the service providers to get where they're going, which in this case is Netflix.

And in a buyer's market, the provider would jump at the chance to hook up to Netflix's servers. They'd want to stand out in a sea of service providers as the best service to get if you use Netflix. But these are quasi-monopolies we're dealing with here.

In reality, this is the right move for the FCC. Netflix needs to get their servers further up the pipe, and Comcast/Verizon/Whoever owns that stuff up there. It's their world, and Netflix is just a squirrel trying to get a nut. The FCC doesn't really have a place in that.


RE: So then what will net neutrality protect?
By SteelRing on 4/1/2014 3:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
Netflix actually shot themselves in the foot by agreeing to the contract in the first place. In effect they're showing everyone and FCC that there are solutions in the marketplace to resolve this and thus the law is no longer needed. If they had refused to pay, of course, Comcast will launch its own Comflix service and Netflix might even go bankrupt before the case goes to court but the law might have gone thru with now-deceased Netflix as your prima facie evidence.

Problem is Hastings is not willing to sacrifice Netflix on the altar of net neutrality. So there you go.


RE: So then what will net neutrality protect?
By karimtemple on 4/1/2014 3:37:26 PM , Rating: 1
Again, Net Neutrality is about packets. This is about traffic. Comcast is not blocking anything.

It's just that even though the Netflix service wants to use a far greater proportion of throughput than other traffic, Comcast is treating Netflix the same as all other traffic. That doesn't work out well for Netflix, especially since they flipped a switch this year which tries to push out everything at ~1080p, which in this case made everyone's service degrade because the pipes didn't get any bigger.

The solution is to hook up the servers farther up the pipe. Putting their service on or closer to the 'backbone' increases the available traffic -- or widens the pipe so-to-say -- and that new "Super HD" setting stops stepping on everyone's dicks. Netflix asked Comcast to let them do this, and Comcast said "not for free." You have to understand, this is a special relationship that is limited in nature. It's not something everyone can just sign up for. By design, it can only be a few groups that Comcast allows to do something like this. As you can imagine, something like that wouldn't be free.

Like I said, in a buyer's market, it wouldn't go down this way. But we don't buy the wire from the service providers because Americans hate stuff they think is communist, and we don't more strongly regulate the wire because Americans hate stuff they think is socialist. So, it's their wire, it's their show.


RE: So then what will net neutrality protect?
By bsd228 on 4/1/2014 4:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's just that even though the Netflix service wants to use a far greater proportion of throughput than other traffic, Comcast is treating Netflix the same as all other traffic. That doesn't work out well for Netflix, especially since they flipped a switch this year which tries to push out everything at ~1080p, which in this case made everyone's service degrade because the pipes didn't get any bigger.


Let's not ignore what this is really about. Comcast had their own netflix type service and would rather you use it rather than netflix. That's the entire store here, people.

There's an inherent fault in letting ISPs be content servers. Net neutrality was the means to keep them behaving properly.


RE: So then what will net neutrality protect?
By karimtemple on 4/1/2014 5:31:53 PM , Rating: 1
Says "let's not ignore what this is really about," ignores everything previously said. lol.

I am an avid Netflix supporter -- a fan -- and a fervent hater of the way telecom is done here. I hate this stuff as much as anyone. But we need to face facts here, too. Comcast is not blocking anything, and they're not charging for anything that's crazy to charge for. Netflix needed more throughput than they were previously paying for, so they paid more for more. It's actually a pretty straightforward situation.


By bsd228 on 4/1/2014 7:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am an avid Netflix supporter -- a fan -- and a fervent hater of the way telecom is done here. I hate this stuff as much as anyone. But we need to face facts here, too. Comcast is not blocking anything, and they're not charging for anything that's crazy to charge for. Netflix needed more throughput than they were previously paying for, so they paid more for more. It's actually a pretty straightforward situation.


Comcast's history definitely includes blocking of traffic.


RE: So then what will net neutrality protect?
By drlumen on 4/1/2014 4:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
If there is a disparity between ISP's for peering or carriage agreements then the ISP's should sort it out. I'm sure Netflix pays a ton for their bandwidth through their ISP. Why does their ISP not pass that on to the others downstream? If, after all the downstream peers are agreed and paid then the Netflix ISP should go to them with possible rate increases. In essence, the Netflix ISP would serve as their customer (Netflix) advocate. If the current Netflix ISP can't arrange proper peering or carriage then Netflix goes to another ISP.

What's to keep TWC, Comcast, AT&T or Verizon from setting fees so high that Netflix can't afford them? The Netflix traffic suffers and, once again, guess who is ready to step in with their own VOD or pay channel offerings?

It's ridiculous that the FCC is turning a blind eye to this.


RE: So then what will net neutrality protect?
By karimtemple on 4/1/2014 5:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
What you're not getting is that there's nothing wrong with the peering. That's all going as previously agreed. The problem is that peering, as it is, isn't enough for millions of customers simultaneously doing high-definition video streams pretty much all the time. By all accounts, in terms of traffic, Netflix and YouTube are most of the Internet. Video is a lot of data. Video streaming is a lot of throughput.


By drlumen on 4/2/2014 12:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
Peering is the problem. ISP's such as TWC or Comcast (et al ISP's) aren't wanting to provide the bandwidth to XO Communications (Netflix ISP) because most all of the traffic is one way - downstream. The et al don't believe the peering is fair as there is not as much traffic carried upstream by XO. Therefore the et al aren't willing to provide the extra bandwidth due to the disparity in upstream/downstream traffic.

This is where the ISP's need to sort it out. Should Netflix be required to cut a deal with every little ISP known to man just to serve their customers? Or, should the ISP's sort it out so that Netflix (or any other company) should only be billed by their primary ISP?


RE: So then what will net neutrality protect?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2014 4:01:40 PM , Rating: 1
You're confused because Tiffany is framing this situation in a horribly incorrect context.

Netflix wasn't forced to pay Comcast to deliver content to the end users. There is NO "toll"! Netflix sought Comcast out and they agreed on terms that would BETTER serve Netflix customers due to the massive amount of traffic Netflix imposes on Internet Service Providers.

These aren't "tolls". ISP's are NOT blocking Netflix traffic unless Netflix pays up. But obviously Netflix represents a GIGANTIC amount of bandwidth usage, and I don't think it's unfair that ISP's and Netflix work out mutually beneficial arrangements.

Tiffany is the worst, the wording in this article is just criminal.


RE: So then what will net neutrality protect?
By ritualm on 4/1/2014 8:47:22 PM , Rating: 3
Netflix was corralled into this awful agreement because Comcast gave its own Xfinity service a higher traffic priority than its competitor.

On purpose.


By McGaiden on 4/1/2014 10:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you insist on using facts and logic on the internet, ritualm?

Don't you want to amuse people who protect mega corporations like Reclaimer77 so they can get raped later on and proudly say "I defended that".

Net neutrality is very important, and comcast is, as you say, only trying to crush Netflix by pushing these tolls. Netflix came to Comcast first because they knew that if the FCC was not willing to stand up for net neutrality, it had no choice.

And the FCC is again demonstrating that the US gubmint is more attunted to corporate lobbyists than it is for the American taxpayer.

But unlike most retarded conservatives, who draw the conclusion that we now need MORE corporate control, we should examine how the U.S. government came to this.

And the answer is money. Buckloads of money. All of it coming from corporate lobbyists.

America is turning into a banana republic. Even notoriously corrupt Mexico is shaking up its telecom industry, while America is moving into the other direction, towards more oligarchy and control of the few.

Aside from Silicon Valley, there is very little to admire about America anymore. And the majority of the workers in Silicon Valley are immigrants anyway.


RE: So then what will net neutrality protect?
By Milliamp on 4/2/2014 3:17:30 AM , Rating: 2
That's actually not what's happening. Netflix is asking to have their connections to the Internet donated by ISPs rather than have to pay them anything. Netflix is asking for a free lunch.

Netflix is'd claiming to be overcharged, they are protesting against being charged at all. As AT&T put it they want a free lunch.

Rate limiting their packets should be against the law but simply charging them normal rates for connectivity? Making a law against that would be dumb.


By Etsp on 4/3/2014 1:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
They have a connection to the internet: XO Communications. That is their ISP. They pay for that. They pay to get access to the internet.

The problems stem from when Netflix's traffic leaves XO's network into the rest of the internet. Comcast deliberately did not upgrade that link as needed as a means of reducing the quality of Netflix for their customers, and used it as a tool to force Netflix to pay to be connected directly to Comcast.

It's like Verizon saying you need to pay them to get good call quality to their customers, when you have service with AT&T.


The ignorance around this issue is nuts
By Milliamp on 4/2/2014 2:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
Netflix is about 30% of peak traffic and ISP's could charge them a bunch of ways, lets break them down:

They could

5. Charge them 30% of costs x 2, an amount far above their typical profit margins
4. They could change them 30% of costs, and their standard profit margin
3. They could charge them a cost alone.
2. They could charge them an amount much much lower than (like 5% of) cost for only their direct interconnect.
1. They could provide unlimited connectivity to Netflix for free donating the circuits to them.

We all agree that #5 should be illegal because its anticompetitive.
#4 is standard bulk rate pricing with enough for some profit margin, this would be considered fair in most other industries.
#3 is what a lot of people probably believe the terms should be in this case
#2 is likely what ISP's are actually offering
#1 is what netflix is publicly demanding and saying should be written into law.

I agree Netflix shouldn't be on the hook to cover ISP networks but I don't agree that their connections should be outright donated and I especially don't agree that should actually be the written law.

Claiming that charging any amount of money at all should be made illegal is a pretty good way to ensure that Net Neutrality (intended mostly for scenario #5) never sees the light of day.

If your response to me is "How do you know Netflix is shooting down option #2 and not option #5" my answer is I don't have to because hastings himself said #1 was the only option they were interested in on a blog post. He made no mention of accepting compromise and even here the article says the Comcast agreement is only intended to be temporary.

Net Neutrality was never intended to outlaw scenarios #2 through #4.




RE: The ignorance around this issue is nuts
By zzeoss on 4/2/2014 9:41:06 AM , Rating: 2
Where i live, there's no Netflix.
Here's my simplified view of the situation:

Comcast's/etc clients pay for internet.
Netflix pays their isp/isp's to send data throught he internet.
Downstream is cheap, upstream is expensive still true?

Client requests data from Netflix.
Client requests data from Wikipedia.

The difference is the volume.
Client is not billed on volume or on peak traffic. Should he be? It's the client that requests the data, Netflix provides, Comcast facilitates.
Client pays Comcast for the service of unrestricted access to internet.
Why should there be a tax on Netflix that provides what Comcast's client requires?
If Comcast's clients "abuse" Wikipedia, will Comcast go after wiki to pay up for delivering what clients requested?

Another view:
If we reduce the situation to absurd, Comcast would have 30% less clients due to the missing content available from Netflix.
If no content would be available Comcast would have 100% less clients (i am referring to Comcast as ISP).


And all this nonsense would not matter if Client would send as much data to Netflix as he receives. Would this cheat be allowed? (waste of traffic).


RE: The ignorance around this issue is nuts
By Milliamp on 4/2/2014 11:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
>Why should there be a tax on Netflix that provides what Comcast's client requires?

There isn't a special tax on Netflix. Saying so would be like saying there is a special tax on you if I ask you to send me a file because you are also paying for Internet.

If I pay for Internet and request a file form you, should your Internet then be free?


By Milliamp on 4/2/2014 11:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
Also traffic is traffic, it doesn't really matter if you are sending or receiving it.


RE: The ignorance around this issue is nuts
By zzeoss on 4/3/2014 1:31:30 AM , Rating: 2
>>If I pay for Internet and request a file form you, should your Internet then be free?

You word your question as if Netflix does not pay for internet at all!! They do. They pay to send. Client pays to receive. Everyone pays!

Where i live we have thousands of ISP's. Even ISP's with 100-200 clients (connected directly to Cogent).
If Netflix opens in my country, should they negotiate with each of these thousand ISP's?


By Milliamp on 4/3/2014 8:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you are asking and I can explain it.

Netflix does pay for Internet BUT they also have the option to connect directly with large ISP and send them the traffic they have for them.

This would be like you keeping a connection to the Internet and then realizing a lot of your Internet traffic is between you and your neighbor. You could just pay to run a cat5 cable to your neighbors house for his traffic and then you wouldn't have to pay your Internet provider to carry it any more. This is called peering.

This is what Netflix is doing with ISPs because they have so much traffic.

Their argument is however that they want to peer with ISPs for free so they don't have to pay to deliver the traffic over the Internet or pay ISPs to deliver it directly to them. By bypassing their own Internet provider and forcing ISP's to give them connections for free they want their traffic to be free.

This would be like if your neighbor told you "well I won't charge you to use my NAS but if you are going to run a cable to my house you buy the cable and give me 1/16th of the cost of my 16 port switch and we have a deal"

At that point do you tell your neighbor he violated your net neutrality, accuse him publicly of being a greedy criminal, and call the police? You do if you are Reed Hastings.


Paying Dane-Geld Netflix?
By lagomorpha on 4/1/2014 2:30:40 PM , Rating: 4
It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"




RE: Paying Dane-Geld Netflix?
By Jeffk464 on 4/1/2014 5:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hey wait a second, The Dane, isn't that racist?


RE: Paying Dane-Geld Netflix?
By lagomorpha on 4/2/2014 10:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
Denmark is European so it doesn't count.


Corporate Greed
By Ranari on 4/1/2014 4:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get it. Customers are already paying ISP's for their bandwidth. What they use for it is their own business, and I don't feel ISP's have any right to regulate that. So really, who cares if Netflix is a good portion of the internet traffic. That's bought traffic when you pay your $79.99/month (or however much you pay) internet bill every month.

Comcast has no right to limit Netflix traffic.




RE: Corporate Greed
By Milliamp on 4/2/2014 3:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
Why do they have any right to charge you or limit your traffic? Is your traffic not limited to the connection you have?

What if you called up comcast, refused to give them another dime, and told them you would file a net neutrality complaint if they don't donate to you an unlimited amount of connectivity?

The only difference is your name isn't Netflix. If you had to draft a law that made charging Netflix any amount greater than free illegal, what would it say? Should Netflix get their own law or should the law apply to other companies as well? What is the criteria for having your connectivity provided for free by law?

Keep in mind, we both agree that overcharging is anticompetitive and should be illegal.


RE: Corporate Greed
By snyper256 on 4/3/2014 12:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's just anti-competitive behavior by the cable corporations.


So glad i'm getting Google Fiber.
By RjBass on 4/1/2014 5:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sometime between June 20th and July 31st I will be hooked up to Google Fiber and I can't wait. Last time I checked they weren't demanding more from content providers to get their services to the end user. No data caps either from Google Fiber and much faster speeds.

If you live in an area that has Google Fiber or is getting it, don't sleep on it. Sign up. It's worth every penny.




RE: So glad i'm getting Google Fiber.
By Milliamp on 4/2/2014 3:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
It should be worth every penny since the municipality is fronting a lot of the costs with your tax money. How much of your tax money is being used for it? Does it say on your monthly bill what percentage of costs were from taxes?

If not, then the bill you pay doesn't give you a very accurate idea of its worth.

I agree when you look at half the data it does seem like a pretty good deal.


By RjBass on 4/2/2014 3:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, there is some truth to that, agreed. But even if I am paying $50 more a month in taxes to pay for the rollout of Google Fiber, it's still worth it in my opinion. I will be paying $70/month to Google for my fiber. Add in another $50 in taxes and that brings my monthly total to $130/month for Fiber. I can live with that.


By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 4/2/2014 11:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to see Netflix append a $2 charge for 'bad' ISPs, with an email explaining that charge well ahead of time, laying out the reasons for it, and telling folks who to call to complain about it. So you either switch ISPs to avoid the fee, pay the fee, or your account can't route to Netflix from those IP ranges.




Corruption.
By snyper256 on 4/3/2014 12:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
They want content providers to be beholden to the ISPs (because of who the ISPs are). FCC in bed with Comcast.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki