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

221–230 of 284 posts

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

#221

Post by jpao79 »

error54 wrote: post #217
jpao79 wrote: post #212

What would seem to make sense for Netflix would be use more HDD/SSD caching of videos, similar to how a DVR for Tivo works. There really isn't a huge reason to live stream Netflix movie/show content. It's not live video. The Netflix subscriber user could download up to 30 or 40 Netflix shows in advance from their Netflix queue (sort of like the original 'Netflix by mail' queue) over LTE at midnight under some sort of…

TV's would be one (of many) limiting factors here. Most consumer televisions have, relative to most other computing devices, low processing power and disk space. Plus you have to factor the additional bandwidth load of downloading a 4K television show that you may not watch and then multiply that cost by 30 or 40.

Yes, it would be like a Netflix box (maybe branded under their Roku brand name) that's similar to Tivo. A Tivo Bolt Premier can be had for $299 with a 1TB drive.

The key is signing a lower cost deal with Verizon/ATT LTE or Dish Satellite to do some sort of the multicast broadcasting similar to Over the Air broadcasting but over the internet. Or do unicast transmissions but during off peak hours and blast it out over the LTE/Satellite network over the span of a week between the hours of 1AM to 5AM. The Netflix Top 100 is probably like 95% of what people are watching.

That way not everyone is congested from 5PM to 11PM every night and the mobile operators have additional revenue from existing wireless/satellite infrastructure.

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

#222

Post by isostatic »

rayiner wrote: post #182
citilife wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way electricity works is by allowing the electrical company to charge everyone (across their whole network) such that they make a max of 10% (depends on state) above their current amortized expenditure. The idea being, if an electric company wants to make more money, it has to spend more money. And it's fixed how much money they can charge (it's based on total network cost). Think of it as a semi-non-profit, whic…

There's decades of precedent on how to do utility regulation, and that is one of the models. (It's called the rate-of-return model.) It was used for telecom for a long time, but has lots of problems. On one hand, it can encourage gold plating (spending money on infrastructure that isn't helpful because there is a guaranteed return on capital investment). On the other hand, political pressure can drive the return rate…

Your pipe examples are a failure of the market to correctly capture externalities.

I'm not sure how not having cheap fibre to ge doorstep is an externality.

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

#223

Post by chalkandpaste »

snowwrestler wrote: post #169
chalkandpaste wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 incu…

"Common Carrier" classification under Title II of the Communications act of 1934 is just one implementation of the legal concept of common carrier, which dates back to transportation systems in England. (warning: simplified)

No issue with what you're saying here. The primary point I wanted to emphasize was that our application of regulations to the telephone system is not in line with whom I was replying to said, that there was around a 30-40 year gap.

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

#224

Post by wizu »

mietek wrote: post #213
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…

> that is why the Soviet Union lagged U.S. technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK-33

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

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

#225

Post by bmelton »

rayiner wrote: post #216
wpietri wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the government, I suppose. And your criteria for comparison. Broadband in particular is very infrastructure-ish. It's much more like a water utility or traffic lights than a service business like on-demand personal drivers. Many governments run infrastructure quite well.

What infrastructure is broadband most like? The water utility that's poisoning people with lead: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dcs-decade-old-problem-... . The sewer utility that's dumping raw sewage into the local river: https://wtop.com/dc/2017/07/heavy-rain-raw-sewage-potomac-an... . Or the subway infrastructure that constantly catches fire? https://www.arlnow.com/2018/01/22/developing-track-fire-at-p... .…

Not that I disagree with your premise, but as someone who's never livd in America's most corrupt city, what is it about Chicago that inspires so much confidence with regard to municipal broadband?

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

#226

Post by bmelton »

reaperducer wrote: post #199
rayiner wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the industry should self-fund universal coverage is massively distortionary. If we want everyone to have electricity and broadband (an admirable goal), that's fine. The government should build electricity and broadband to places that don't have it (and I'd posit they should do it in a cost efficient way, e.g. with wireless). Forcing the places that do have it to subsidize the places that don't have it,…

>The government should build electricity and broadband to places that don't have it Except every time a government tries to do just that, the ISPs sue to stop it. Even if they have no plans to provide the service, themselves. They don't want the precedent.

On what grounds do they sue? Clearly local governments have the ability to build/own things like buses, metros, recycling centers, etc.

Do you have any citations?

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

#227

Post by matchagaucho »

Let's face it... Internet access is an essential utility similar to roadways, sewage, water, electrical, and gas.

Our municipality will likely just create a bond measure to run city-owned fiber direct to all homes and business, and put the ISP backbone operations up for bid (contingent on net neutral management).

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

#228

Post by owyn »

bmelton wrote: post #226
reaperducer wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The government should build electricity and broadband to places that don't have it Except every time a government tries to do just that, the ISPs sue to stop it. Even if they have no plans to provide the service, themselves. They don't want the precedent.

On what grounds do they sue? Clearly local governments have the ability to build/own things like buses, metros, recycling centers, etc. Do you have any citations?

It's not that they're suing directly, but getting laws passed which block municipal internet. You don't have to sue if you can write the laws. This has happened in 20+ states already.

There are lots of citations:

http://fortune.com/2016/08/10/municipal-internet/

"An appeals court on Wednesday sided with the telecom industry, and with North Carolina and Tennessee, in a major decision that upheld the ability of states to pass laws that restrict municipalities from offering broadband internet services."

And in Colorado:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171106/09481638554/comca...

And here's an argument for why they're doing it. It's all about never allowing taxes to be collected to be spent on something that benefits, well, anyone. Basically since government is inherently bad and can't do anything right, it will cost too much money and they won't work and only private companies have the "expertise" to run "an internet":

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/339232-the-...

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

#229

Post by georgemcbay »

0xffff2 wrote: post #97
nickjj wrote: post #72

I don't think ISPs have any power in this situation at all. They are just delivery mechanisms when it comes to providing internet connectivity. All of the power lies within Google, Netflix and other content providers. Google could one day deny access to all of its services for all Comcast customers. If all of the content providers / big sites band together and do this, then there would be no value in paying for a Com…

Wait a minute. Couldn't Google do this even with net neutrality? If I put a web server on the public internet, I'm perfectly free to refuse connections arbitrarily. It's only ISPs, who are routing traffic, that are required to route everything the same under NN.

> Couldn't Google do this even with net neutrality?

Sure, but it is clearly not within Google's business interests to reduce their customer base arbitrarily. Cutting off access from specific ISPs would basically be a nuclear option for them.

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

#230

Post by georgemcbay »

acdha wrote: post #135
bjornsing wrote: post #81

I wonder if a bunch of Internet companies (Netflix, Alphabet, etc) could gang up and collectively block an ISP...? Could give them quite interesting leverage in negotiations.

They don’t even need to do that: just making e.g. Netflix or YouTube display a message like “Your experience is bad right now because your ISP is trying to double-charge for your traffic. Click here to call them…” would get an enormous amount of leverage.

Google actually already has something like this in place for YouTube.

Not specific to net neutrality (or lack thereof), but if they detect that your access to YouTube is slow due to network congestion on your local ISP, there's a popup that essentially names and shames your ISP by redirecting you to this:

https://www.google.com/get/videoqualityreport/

Post reply on HN