Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 284 posts

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#111

Post by jethro_tell »

niftich wrote: post #102
dsabanin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just fail to see how Comcast or Verizon are going to be selling you their internet connection if you won't be able to connect to the things you want to connect to (like Netflix, iTunes, YouTube) through them. Especially on higher plans, people buy a lot of bandwidth so that they can stream videos, that's how ISPs up-sell to them. If they start throttling, they'll be selling an empty bucket, and it's not going to be…

Here's some possible scenarios that illustrate what could play out: - They could zero-rate their own offerings, making them available at a very low price and not counting them against data usage. - They could offer no-cost access to some of their own offerings with a compatible, captive piece of equipment (e.g. handset, modem, cable box). - They could charge third-parties more per unit of data for interconnect, creat…

They can also make partnerships to zero rate or accelerate partners, netflix pays a little more than hulu and now it costs to watch hulu but not netflix. So now you're picking winners based on who already has money.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#112

Post by alfredallan1 »

telchar wrote: post #10

Or better yet, we can work toward a future (no later than 2021, I hope) when net neutrality can be brought back into force just as it was from 2015-2017 by FCC action or perhaps with more staying power via legislative action. Ground taken once can be taken twice. If we resign ourselves to the current legal landscape we hand a victory to these corrupt players. That said I'm sure the tech giants will want to hedge thei…

Just go the Finland route, and declare high speed internet access a basic right. Maybe add it onto the constitution. That should pave the way for getting back NN and keeping it for good.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#113

Post by adventured »

manofmanysmiles wrote: post #20
pascalxus wrote: post #5

This the end of innovation in online videos: "When companies like Netflix, which today closed with a market cap of almost $158 billion, can’t necessarily get enough negotiating power to ensure that consumers have direct access to them, no startup can ever hope to compete. America may believe in its entrepreneurs, but its competition laws have done nothing to keep the terrain open for them. Those implications are just…

This type of comment implies you think the world is static. I'm not saying that this good, but what makes you so sure market and social forces won't produce a better model? To me this is just a temporary setback, and a reminder why we need to focus on developing new technologies, like a "truly decentralized internet", blockchain, cryptography, and more. It almost feels like a the death throws of a monster that will d…

> This type of comment implies you think the world is static. I'm not saying that this good, but what makes you so sure market and social forces won't produce a better model?

They already are: multiple low or modest cost, high speed satellite providers are targeting the US market for deployment in the next four or five years.

The dumber Comcast and AT&T are about the situation, the more money SpaceX is going to make on Starlink. Amusingly, Comcast is probably going to help get us to Mars.

Regardless of the rampant cynicism about competition (plenty of which is warranted), the low earth orbit competition is coming fast. Nothing can stop it at this point.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#114

Post by JustSomeNobody »

snowwrestler wrote: post #75
spruciefic399 wrote: post #56

Another strategy to this (not exclusive of other strategies) is to encourage municipal ISPs, or even go further and roll out federal ISP infrastructure ala the federal highway system. I've always thought that this would be well within the rubric of the USPS. The constitutional mandate for a postal service was drafted at a time when the internet could not have been conceived of. I would argue that the intent of the co…

The next step beyond the mail was the telegraph and then the telephone. Those were built out by private companies, but operated under a regulatory regime called "common carrier," which protected the network owner from liability so long as it charged and carried traffic from all parties equally. These days, that concept is called "net neutrality" in the context of the Internet, and I suppose you may have heard it ment…

> Personally, I think that private buildouts are a better way to go than a government-funded network infrastructure.

If it is government-funded, then the people own it not some bloated corporation.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#115

Post by chalkandpaste »

snowwrestler wrote: post #75
spruciefic399 wrote: post #56

Another strategy to this (not exclusive of other strategies) is to encourage municipal ISPs, or even go further and roll out federal ISP infrastructure ala the federal highway system. I've always thought that this would be well within the rubric of the USPS. The constitutional mandate for a postal service was drafted at a time when the internet could not have been conceived of. I would argue that the intent of the co…

The next step beyond the mail was the telegraph and then the telephone. Those were built out by private companies, but operated under a regulatory regime called "common carrier," which protected the network owner from liability so long as it charged and carried traffic from all parties equally. These days, that concept is called "net neutrality" in the context of the Internet, and I suppose you may have heard it ment…

>Those were built out by private companies, but operated under a regulatory regime called "common carrier,"

No. "Common Carrier" classification under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 comes more than 30 years after the introduction of the telephone, much longer than the telegraph. More than that, it could be argued that that, along with the Kingsbury Commitment were the contributions that led to an AT&T incumbency in the first place.

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#117

Post by JustSomeNobody »

haikuginger wrote: post #19
kec wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how 5G changes anything. Wireless providers were exempt from net neutrality even when it was in force and have a long history of tiered usage and throttling.

Having wireless providers who are able to provide landline-level speeds means that many markets will go from having one or maybe two real ISP options to having three or four. Competition means that if the benefits of net neutrality are desirable, customers will prefer an ISP (wireless or otherwise) that provides those benefits. Of course, most actual counterexamples to net neutrality are seen as positives (free Netfl…

> Having wireless providers who are able to provide landline-level speeds ...

Are they going to cap me at 1000GB like Comcast, also?

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#118

Post by JustSomeNobody »

rayiner wrote: post #34
0xffff2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are these providers actually going to compete with landline ISP's? My landline ISPs over the last couple of years have had monthly data caps ranging from 256gb to 1tb. My cell plan currently throttles me after I exceed 6gb... That's two orders of magnitude that my wireless provider would have to increase the cap in order to compete with the landline ISP.

The plan appears to be, yes: https://www.pcmag.com/news/357374/verizon-no-4g-level-data-c... . Verizon execs are throwing around 5G caps in that ballpark.

That's a tiny ballpark:

> During a roundtable, VP of network support Mike Haberman, some other Verizon folks, and the assembled journalists agreed that an average data cap in the vicinity of 180GB/month would satisfy the average consumer.

> "That shouldn't be a problem with 5G. What does 4K video use? Think about how many 4K TVs you can put on a service that's a true 1 gigabit to your house," Haberman said.

I don't see that 180GB lasting long at all...

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#119

Post by karpodiem »

jedberg wrote: post #51
0xffff2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are these providers actually going to compete with landline ISP's? My landline ISPs over the last couple of years have had monthly data caps ranging from 256gb to 1tb. My cell plan currently throttles me after I exceed 6gb... That's two orders of magnitude that my wireless provider would have to increase the cap in order to compete with the landline ISP.

Verizon really really wants to be your main provider. Once they can provide you with a 1gbps wireless service, they will compete on price and data caps with your local wireline ISP to win your business.

We will see. Would be a first for wireless in a metropolitan area.

(WISPS in rural areas are a bit different)

Re: Netflix and Alphabet will need to become ISPs, fast

#120

Post by wpietri »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #114
snowwrestler wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next step beyond the mail was the telegraph and then the telephone. Those were built out by private companies, but operated under a regulatory regime called "common carrier," which protected the network owner from liability so long as it charged and carried traffic from all parties equally. These days, that concept is called "net neutrality" in the context of the Internet, and I suppose you may have heard it ment…

> Personally, I think that private buildouts are a better way to go than a government-funded network infrastructure. If it is government-funded, then the people own it not some bloated corporation.

Yeah. I think markets are amazing when you have the right conditions such that you get plenty of sellers, plenty of buyers, and switching vendors is easy.

But the US market mostly doesn't have plenty of sellers. You really want at least 3 to get good competition, and that's very rare:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-mi...

My first choice is strong competition, and I live in one of the few US areas that have that. It's great! I have a gigabit both ways for less than my mobile bill. But my clear second choice is locally owned municipal broadband that can be held accountable by the people.

My very last choice is a local monopoly owned by a giant national corporation, because then we get the the worst features of communism (incompetence, poor service, abysmal customer support) and the worst features of capitalism (high prices, exploitative behavior, use of profits to buy legislation).

Post reply on HN