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

Comcast response to Netflix

corporate.comcast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#91

Post by rtpg »

scrabble wrote: post #84
rtpg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint is more in the first link than the actual article, but it is that the Comcast/Netflix relationship is not a website-ISP sort of relationship (the one where net neutrality comes into play), but an ISP-ISP peering relationship. In that relationship, ISPs have paid for peering agreements since the dawn of time. Netflix chose to go down the route of basically becoming the backbone but isn't willing to ac…

I could agree with that, but later they say that it's not fair that Comcast customers without Netflix pay for the bandwidth of Netflix users. I understand that Netflix uses a lot of bandwidth, but what about heavy P2P users that have their traffic subsidized by other customers -- or any other site that is not used by all customers. That's how it works. Everyone pays for access for everyone (except there is tiered acc…

The problem (on both sides of the argument) is that there's conflation of the website-ISP relationship (i.e. should Comcast be allowed to throttle services/make "fast lanes" for certain services) and the provider-provider relationship (i.e. should Comcast allow other providers to get direct connection into their backbone?)

The agreements between Comcast and Netflix fall into the latter, but because people only think of Netflix as 'a bunch of servers connected to the internet', many don't realize that Netflix/Cogent has stuff inside the backbone, which is a different discussion.

A (shitty) analogy would be the difference between the post office charging me more in stamps depending on who I was when I want to send a letter (net neutrality), and the USPS charging me for the right to be able to have my own stuff inside the post-offices themselves and dropping stuff directly into the trucks.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#93

Post by schackbrian »

click170 wrote: post #4

You lost me at "No ISP in the country has been a stronger supporter of the Open Internet than Comcast" I'm sorry Comcast but if you can't fullfil our agreement (Internet access) then you aren't an ISP in my mind. I pay you for an Internet connection, not for the ability to send packets at someone else -- they get to respond to me as well, that's part of our deal.

Myth: "No ISP in the country has been a stronger supporter of the Open Internet than Comcast[.]"

Fact: "Comcast spent the most money of any organization in support of the Stop Online Piracy and PROTECT IP bills, spending roughly $5 million to lobby for their passage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Lobbying_and_electoral_...

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#94

Post by ncallaway »

zxexz wrote: post #71
hanley wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like Comcast left their comment section open too, although you have to scroll past the 2 large paragraphs of legal matters to get to the comments. I thought it was interesting that they have more legal content than actual content on the post.

Funny - it now appears that there are 0 comments on the Comcast page.

It appears the comments are moderated. I attempted to post a comment and it's now in the moderation queue.

Presumably "0 comments" is simply the number of comments that portray Comcast in a reasonable light?

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#95

Post by ncallaway »

naviwins wrote: post #89
lern_too_spel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix isn't complaining about peering directly. That's exactly what they want. They're complaining because according to anybody with common sense, that peering should be settlement-free.

Why would it be settlement free? Its just like any other peering agreement, If the data was symmetrical it would be free, but its not. Netflix is sending way more than its receiving. If you were an ISP would you provide free transit to everyone? If you did, you would be out of business.

There's a difference between providing interchange transit, and transit to your end users.

ISPs are being paid for transit to their end users _by their end users_.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#96

Post by ncallaway »

conroe64 wrote: post #90
betterunix wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Evolving business strategies" like fighting new technologies to maintain a decades-old business model ? Interesting perspective you have there...

These weird political fights are in the wrong arena. I'm not going to try to argue with you about what it means to fight a new technology and whether a decades old business model is valid or not, because it's just silly. Regardless of how you and I feel whether a company is doing the right thing, it's there and it's surviving, and in this case, thriving, in its niche. It might feel good to bad mouth giant corporation…

In general I agree with the sentiment behind this post. Except, I disagree with one sentence that's key to the context in the case of Comcast:

"If you don't like what they do, try and get the law changed." I think this needs to be appended with "and do not buy goods and/or services from them."

Unfortunately, in my case with Comcast, as with many high speed ISPs around the country, there is 0 competition. In order to get speeds higher than 5Mbps in my area, the only option I have is Comcast. In an anti-competitive / monopoly market, I lose the ability to vote with my wallet by finding a competitor whose practices I agree with.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#97

Post by naviwins »

ncallaway wrote: post #95
naviwins wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be settlement free? Its just like any other peering agreement, If the data was symmetrical it would be free, but its not. Netflix is sending way more than its receiving. If you were an ISP would you provide free transit to everyone? If you did, you would be out of business.

There's a difference between providing interchange transit, and transit to your end users. ISPs are being paid for transit to their end users _by their end users_.

hmm... so Netflix paid cogent before, and now you think they should not pay Comcast for the same service? Where is your logic?

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#98

Post by smileysteve »

Touche wrote: post #72
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peering agreements are free when no money changes hands. Your argument simplifies to "because Comcast said so."

And free peering agreements (called settlement-free agreements) only happen when the transit is more or less balanced.

So, if Netflix just increases data that viewers are sending it, it's okay?

So if Netflix adds

setInterval('EqualizeBandwidth',1000/24) function EqualizeBandwidth(){ $.post('netflix.com/dosbox', {data:randomLongStringEqualtoVideoFrame+1}); }

Then comcast will pay them. (And most subscribers will be fine if they only watch But bonus if netflix causes every one of their customers to hit the 250gb cap and therefore hate comcast. Any politician that has family trying to watch netflix would complain of overages then and shut comcast out.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#99

Post by Patrick_Devine »

ENGNR wrote: post #9

Where's the actual response, there's more disclaimer than content there

I loved that the disclaimer was 2X the length of the blog post. Oh, and that they try to cram this into their anti-Netflix tweets by including the URL http://imprtnt.info which has a pdf of the same disclaimer.

Re: Comcast response to Netflix

#100

Post by rahimnathwani »

giovannibajo1 wrote: post #45
rchowe wrote: post #23

I'm not too versed in this argument, so could someone please explain why Netflix's activities aren't covered by the normal peering agreements that make the "internet backbone" work? Doesn't Netflix pay it's ISP appropriately which gets disseminated by the other ISPs the traffic gets routed through?

Netflix doesn't have a "primary ISP", they are a network. They would like to freely peer to networks and ISPs that they can physically reach (e.g.: US ISPs), and they are happy to pay carriers for transit, that is bringing their traffic elsewhere in the world where they don't have a physical presence. Most large ISPs won't freely peer with Netflix though; that's actually an industry standard, because peering is usual…

If Netflix were to make their users' devices upload as much data as they download (even junk data which would be discarded at by their edge routers), would they solve the problem of the in/out data imbalance, and thereby be able to take advantage of free peering (with no bandwidth cap) with Comcast?

I suspect this wouldn't be the case, and the outcome would still be about their bargaining position and the negotiation process.

Can anyone with knowledge of these types of negotiations comment?

Post reply on HN