Live data from Hacker News

Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

cnbc.com

91–100 of 361 posts

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#91
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a strategic perspective, I think paying off one of the ISPs in this case strengthens their case by showing that the problem is a shakedown for money. If they didn't pay up and the issue was never fixed then the ISPs could attempt to play it off as some larger-than-money issue. They've proven the problem is greed.

Even better, it attacks Verizon using their own words against them . Verizon: Netflix performance sucks because their traffic is congesting our network! Netflix: Our performance sucks because their network is congested! Verizon: OMG WTF you can't say that!

Can we CC Netflix on this comment... genius!

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#92
post #12

Here is the actual Cease & Desist: http://recode.net/2014/06/05/verizon-threatens-netflix-with-...

It's interesting how Verizon talks about the "panoply of middle-man networks" when that is really the Internet.

Verizon is a walled city. Verizon entices people to live in it's city and pay its rent because it says you can get deliveries from all over the world in the blink of an eye if you live in our city. It has high speed trains, and wide thoroughfares.

It also has a small gate that can let a few cars in at a time.

Outside the gates is another series of superhighways and supersonic trains that connect the whole world.

Netflix says "We can't deliver our movies because the gate to Verizon is too crowded."

Verizon says "You can't claim that, that's unfair. We offered to let you operate inside our walls if you wanted to pay our rent, but you didn't want to."

The problem is that when Verizon got all of its citizens, it promised that it would give them fast INTERNET access. It didn't promise them that it would give them fast access to things on the Verizon network, or things with special arrangements that bypass the internet and use a special toll entrance to the city.

There's no reason they can't widen the gate. The highways outside are absolutely fast enough to send as much traffic as they need into Verizon. But Verizon doesn't want to widen that gate, because they know if they don't, Netflix will have to pay them in order to deliver to their residents at a reasonable rate.

But they absolutely don't want their residents to think that they aren't getting their advertised fast access to the super-highways outside.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#93
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing Devil's advocate here for a second: If Netflix is 35% of global internet traffic at peak capacity (as per the Akamai CEO's comments at a number of events), is it really fair to treat them like every other company? That is to say, if Netflix is really the sole driver of Network upgrades, why does Verizon have to subsidize their costs of business? I'm not taking the stance that this is correct, only querying as…

An ISP's job is to provide internet access to last mile users, such as ourselves. If they choose to reduce that speed for any reason, or throttle any kind of connection they are entitled to do that but they can't complain when someone else says that is what they are doing. Personally, I think given how much public money has gone into infrastructure and the amount of money I pay in taxes it seems insane for me to firs…

An ISP's job, as a private company, is to maximize shareholder value. The circuit consumers are sold is a "best-effort" connection in stark contrast to, say, a T1, which is a dedicated circuit.

It's also very hard to prove that Verizon is throttling, versus, say, simply physically underprovisioning the connection.

With respect to public money, I think you've hit the nail on the head. The crux of the Net Neutrality debate, to my mind, is whether these networks are public or private. If they're private, Net Neutrality is bullshit. If they're public, it's obvious.

It is in consumer interest for the networks to be public, but the same could be said about the socialization of any number of industries. I'm constantly fascinated by the way folks consider socializing the telecom industry to be incredibly reasonable and socializing, say, the healthcare industry to be insanity.

Edit: Maybe I need to tag all of these posts with #DevilsAdvocate to avoid being downvoted into oblivion.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#94
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing Devil's advocate here for a second: If Netflix is 35% of global internet traffic at peak capacity (as per the Akamai CEO's comments at a number of events), is it really fair to treat them like every other company? That is to say, if Netflix is really the sole driver of Network upgrades, why does Verizon have to subsidize their costs of business? I'm not taking the stance that this is correct, only querying as…

This is going under the false assumption that when I bought bandwidth from my ISP they didn't _really_ need to provide me with that bandwidth for realzies. This isn't netflix driving network upgrades this is Verizon customers driving network upgrades. If VZ didn't promise the customers the bandwidth they wouldn't need to upgrade their backhaul to provide it. I mean it would be like Verizon wireless charging apple to…

Amusingly, I've heard carriers use that justification before for pushing phones other than iPhone. Well, that and Apple demands the largest subsidy of all phones. It's a position Apple can sustain because people walk in to the store and ask for Apple and want nothing else, but the carriers really want competition so they will encourage other phones when they can.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#95

This is a genius move. It's exactly what needs to happen to get consumers to realize that it's their ISP fucking them over, not Netflix. The average joe isn't outraged enough about net neutrality. If only they'd start doing this to other known bad actors coughcomcastcough , that might just be what the doctor ordered. I wonder why they ponied up the money to the protection rackets first, and only then started pointing…

I wonder why they ponied up the money to the protection rackets first, and only then started pointing fingers.

One possible reason is that it makes it easy to quantify their economic injury.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#96
post #36

Wow, what a stupid move on Verizon's part. I have to believe the Streisand effects will far and away outpace any remedial action they might try to achieve here. While I get that they are irritated by their customers calling them up knowing more about how broken their network is, than the tech answering the phone, but this is going to be the new reality. With Google, Netflix, and no doubt Amazon providing more informa…

Until the law firm responsible for their client getting Streisanded suffers significant and public repercussions for doing so, they'll continue to advise this kind of action because billable hours .

That's why I just tweeted this @Verizon:

.@Verizon if it weren't for that C&D you sent to @netflix I would never have known how shitty you've been to your customers. THANKS!

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing Devil's advocate here for a second: If Netflix is 35% of global internet traffic at peak capacity (as per the Akamai CEO's comments at a number of events), is it really fair to treat them like every other company? That is to say, if Netflix is really the sole driver of Network upgrades, why does Verizon have to subsidize their costs of business? I'm not taking the stance that this is correct, only querying as…

That's actually a really good point. Ideally, you're right -- if netflix (and internet video in general) drives growth in internet traffic, maybe it isn't fair to require service providers to upgrade their service out of hand. But then I think that rule primarily applies for a free market. I'd argue that internet providers are not currently participating in a free market and it causes real problems. Without a free ma…

The question is: are the networks public, and therefore conduits for competition, or private, and therefore competitive infrastructure. In some capacity, the networks have to peer to hit all of the IP blocks, but that's pretty much one of the better examples of free market success (although that might be changing) and arguably quite private. In another narrative, the networks were laid with private investment (in many cases partially public funded as well) and so the question is moot (if it's all private money).

Are the networks public or private and why can't we decide?

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do they mean WiFi won't work? How is that anything other than a blatant lie? Reminds me of the late 90's when my ISP told me I couldn't get cable Internet because I didn't have a 486. I lied and told them I did to have the modem sent to me to hook up myself. It's a computer network, once it's in my house I can expose it as I like.

How many of us had to bluff our way through the first gatekeeper on tech support like this? Tech: "Could you please unplug your computer for 20 seconds and restart it?" Me: "Okay. . Okay, it's back" Or this gem? Tech: "What browser are you using?" Me: " Internet Explorer 6".

I just want to point out that Teksavvy have in my experience proven to be FANTASTIC at helping with linux internet-related problems.

I now refuse to subscribe to any ISP who does not offer Linux support, and will in fact check to make sure that Teksavvy (or an equivalent as described above) is available in an area before moving to it.

Full Disclosure, I am a Teksavvy customer but not a Teksavvy employee.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do they mean WiFi won't work? How is that anything other than a blatant lie? They probably mean the WiFi built into the cable modem.

How would that be anything other than a blatant lie? Are they going to mail the customer a different model of modem? Do any current cableco-provided modems not have built-in wifi?

Yeah: a few months ago Charter upgraded our cable modem, and neither the new one nor the old one has wifi (they want to sell a router for $12/month).

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#100

It doesn't state it anywhere but I assume Netflix can be pretty sure of where the bottleneck is happening before transmitting that message correct? Given all the other factors that can contribute to a slow down.

> ...I assume Netflix can be pretty sure of where the bottleneck is happening ... It depends on how fancy they get with their detection routines. They can certainly see which networks the traffic is flowing over, but then there are multiple devices (and networks) in play to deliver that traffic to them. For instance, just a one-way trip showing the devices that could slow down a packet of data can give you an idea of…

Those factors are smoothed out in aggregate, though. You can't make assumptions about individual cases, but you can look at the whole picture and compare different large ISPs pretty accurately.
Post reply on HN