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

Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 361 posts

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#121

Post by gknoy »

w-ll wrote: post #55
scrabble wrote: post #39

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.

Similarly in college, when setting up TWC account after some friends and I moved into a house. I clearly remember them saying that our wifi would only work with 1 device if we didnt get the "Fastlane" or whatever package they where trying to up-sell at the time. I just played it dumb and said it was just me. We had about 10+ wireless devices connected.

I suppose that if you had it hooked to a single router, that could be your one device. ;)

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#122

Post by josh2600 »

dkhenry wrote: post #77
josh2600 wrote: post #54

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…

... Your wireless network service is best effort. This is why your service provider doesn't have to compensate you for dropped calls or dropped packets or towers with insufficient capacity.

The word "promise" is not an accurate reading of the legal concepts at play in bandwidth purchase. Dedicated bandwidth for consumers is expensive and completely unavailable on cellular networks.

Verizon also doesn't have to let iPhones connect to their network and only does so because they benefit financially from the relationship. Trust me, putting a device onto a major cellular network in the US is highly political, full of peril and financial alchemy.

Source: I do lots of telecom stuff specifically around wireless.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#123

Post by jostmey »

Whatever happened to the right to free speech? There are of course restrictions to free speech, such as you cannot yell fire in a crowded building unless there really is a fire, but this is not one of those scenarios. The behavior of Verizon and the other ISPs are grossly offensive!

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#124

Post by mantrax5 »

josh2600 wrote: post #93
ljd wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

> An ISP's job, as a private company, is to maximize shareholder value.

You lost me there.

"There is only one valid definition of a business purpose: to create a customer." ~Peter Drucker (whose writings contributed to the philosophical and practical foundations of the modern business corporation)

“On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy… your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products. Managers and investors should not set share price increases as their overarching goal. … Short-term profits should be allied with an increase in the long-term value of a company.” ~Jack Welch (former very successful CEO of GE)

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#125

Post by josh2600 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #120
josh2600 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you draw the line? What shouldn't we socialize?

Excellent question. Anything that doesn't have a natural monopoly. I can say with certainty that the following should be socialized or delivered in non-profit ways: * Water * Sewer * Power * Internet * Healthcare * Fire * Police * Roads * Education (added per /u/CodeMage) Feel free to chime in if you can add anything I forgot.

Not a bad list.

Cheers.

I'll note that we should have explicit public subsidies for Internet and that I would much prefer to have public networks with private operators (to my mind that's heaven for competitive markets but politically impossible in the US).

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#126

Post by CodeMage »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #120
josh2600 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you draw the line? What shouldn't we socialize?

Excellent question. Anything that doesn't have a natural monopoly. I can say with certainty that the following should be socialized or delivered in non-profit ways: * Water * Sewer * Power * Internet * Healthcare * Fire * Police * Roads * Education (added per /u/CodeMage) Feel free to chime in if you can add anything I forgot.

Excellent list. I'd like to add education to it.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#127

Post by gumby »

josh2600 wrote: post #54
Arjuna wrote: post #46

Awesome response to the C&D, via spokesman Jonathan Friedland: "This is about consumers not getting what they paid for from their broadband provider. We are trying to provide more transparency, just like we do with the ISP Speed Index, and Verizon is trying to shut down that discussion."

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…

> If Netflix is 35% of global internet traffic at peak capacity..., is it really fair to treat them like every other company?

Yes it is.

If you solve their problems in the general case, then that solution will also work for the next big user, and for the small users as well. If you special-case handling for them, then it will be harder for the next new entrant (who could even be a Netflix-upending upstart) to become established.

They do use more resources, there is no question about that, but they also have higher costs to their ISPs. This cost could be mitigated by them running their own internal network and peering directly with other backbone providers (they already do this to some extent). But in an architectural sense that option is available to anyone (in practice, of course, nobody is doing BGP for their home network).

If you believe in the original promise of the end to end network (a promise which is currently lying in the street gasping for breath) then you don't want netflix special cased.

It's no surprise that Verizon (with POTS roots) and Comcast (hub and spoke cable provider) don't have end-to-end in their DNA, but rather a tollbooth model of the world. It doesn't mean we have to go along with it.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#128

Post by josh2600 »

mantrax5 wrote: post #124
josh2600 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

> An ISP's job, as a private company, is to maximize shareholder value. You lost me there. "There is only one valid definition of a business purpose: to create a customer." ~Peter Drucker (whose writings contributed to the philosophical and practical foundations of the modern business corporation) “On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy… yo…

That's true except in markets where saturation has been achieved. In a market with 80-100%+ saturation, the per subscriber revenue does not increase year over year. In these cases, creating a customer doesn't actually increase shareholder value because there aren't enough customers that can be created to combat the atrophy of existing revenue.

Jack Welch was hugely successful in creating and competing in new markets specifically because competing in saturated markets is not profitable.

Those models are great for industries in the 0-80% saturation growth period, but aren't really applicable to high saturation markets.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#129

Post by TeMPOraL »

josh2600 wrote: post #110
toomuchtodo wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Can't I want both to be socialized?

Where do you draw the line? What shouldn't we socialize?

Things that work better when they are socialized than when they are privatized. Like healthcare.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#130

Post by sixQuarks »

josh2600 wrote: post #54
Arjuna wrote: post #46

Awesome response to the C&D, via spokesman Jonathan Friedland: "This is about consumers not getting what they paid for from their broadband provider. We are trying to provide more transparency, just like we do with the ISP Speed Index, and Verizon is trying to shut down that discussion."

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…

You're looking at this all wrong. It's not that Netflix is taking up 35% of all bandwidth. It's that CONSUMERS are choosing to spend 35% of their consumption on Netflix.

The ISPs are punishing consumers for their choices - it's just ridiculous.

Post reply on HN