101–110 of 351 posts
So it begins. The end of the neutral internet. I am already paying Comcast for access to the internet! Why does Netflix have to pay on top it? That said, I have Netflix and Comcast and I have never experienced any issues. Edit: Actually I realize, this is an agreement to allow Netflix to colocate some of their servers at Comcast hubs. So it is not actually that bad.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Comcast is not throttling or discriminating traffic in any way (at least not publicly). This is a peering dispute settlement.
Does this affect competitors to Netflix? Depends on how much volume they have. If their volumes are low, they can still reliably use transit providers more economically. As their revenue increases, they'll need their own backbone network, but their ability to pay for it goes up too.
Is Comcast big, bad and evil? Probably. But not in this case. Comcast dealing directly with Netflix is good for both parties. They are entitled to charge Netflix to peer directly because most traffic is going to flow into Comcast's network from Netflix. They also probably had a case negotiating away from settlement-free agreements with Cogent for the same reason. Again, none of this is out of the ordinary, ASes negotiate peering deals with each other all the time based on the volume and direction of the traffic they exchange with each other, and this is all fairly unregulated.
Net neutrality is irrelevant in all of this, it only matters if Comcast actively discriminates between traffic at their end. This deal is not connected to the ruling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What competitors? In many areas, they are the only broadband provider. The next-closest providers are typically DSL. Consumers are going to get screwed on the front & back end of this.
run a search at broadbandnow.com, see what you get
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "Many areas only have Comcast service!" Do a lot of people in the US only have access to one or two ISP's?? If so why? I'm in a not particularly urban part of Ireland and I can choose between at least 5 ISP's, decent speeds, and a good variety of prices.
The last mile. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_mile ) Most places are wired with one phone line, and one cable line. That phone line is generally owned by one specific phone company, and that cable line is generally owned by one specific cable provider. So those are the choices of ISP: you can choose cable service or dsl. For a few years the last mile over phone had to be shared with other IP providers, so you co…
That seems to be where things differ. My phone line is owned by BT but I can still order internet through a different company. I pay that company an extra £10-15 per month for line rental (so I guess BT, even though they own the line chooses/or has to rent it to others).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same thought came to my mind, a moat around Netflix's current business. However, I don't think that's quite how it will play out. Comcast won't charge new streaming providers from the get go. That will stunt its own business opportunities. Instead it will prefer to let them grow to the point where they can claim network congestion issues. At that point it has a "justifiable claim" as well as more negotiating leve…
Yeah, but nobody is going to go into the streaming biz because of this. Netflix is scaring off would be competitors.
This is actually good for Netflix and terrible for any competition. While Netflix probably has to hand over a bit of money, they are in a much better position to do so than any of their competitors as they're the biggest. In effect this creates a massive entry barrier into the video streaming market. You will now likely need to set up a massive infrastructure and pay massive bribes to various internet providers to be…
Or you could just use an existing CDN that's already paying the bribes.
And so the precedent is set. This is the direction I see things going: For $70 a month from Comcast you can get Amazon, Google, and Facebook. For only $10 more a month you can add Netflix and Spotify. Want Pandora? Sorry, you'll have to switch to AT&T for that. The broadband providers are used to this type of packaged service given their history as cable television providers. It's how they make their money beyond pro…
And so the precedent is set. This is the direction I see things going: For $70 a month from Comcast you can get Amazon, Google, and Facebook. For only $10 more a month you can add Netflix and Spotify. Want Pandora? Sorry, you'll have to switch to AT&T for that. The broadband providers are used to this type of packaged service given their history as cable television providers. It's how they make their money beyond pro…
That is not going to happen. The onus is not on the consumer, it's on the service provider. The service provider may transfer the costs onto the consumer but Comcast won't directly charge the consumers a premium. That would be a bad move and Comcast would lose out its customers to competitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cabling is a natural monopoly. Who is allowed to service you over it is not. Thats why many countries have some degree of unbundling of service and provision of wires, eg I can get many providers of ADSL here over the same phone lines that are owned by a monopoly provider. Alas not for fibre though yet (UK).
Why would Verizon want to spend 10 million wiring up your neighborhood and potentially not get you as a customer in an area where Comcast has already spent 10 million to do so? Also why should Comcast be forced to let competitors use their infrastructure they've spent massive amounts of money on building and maintaining?