Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#161

Post by flavor8 » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:53 PM UTC

addflip wrote: post #37

Verizon fios customer here. There has been a noticeable drop in the quality of streams in the past couple of months. The picture went from excellent > barely functional(after the FCC ruling) > watchable(after the peering agreement) still not great. Kudos to Netflix.

Yeah, same here. I was watching a movie on Roku/Netflix 6 weeks or so ago. Quality was 2* (out of 4, meaning OK, but visible encoding artifacts now and again) and yet it still fell back to the buffering screen 8 times in 30 minutes. I got fed up and rented the same movie on Amazon (still on Roku) and watched it in HD without a single instance of buffering. After it was done I switched back to Netflix and tried to watch something else, and again hit buffering every couple of minutes. It's not usually that bad, but it clearly illustrates that somewhere in the Netflix -> Verizon connection that something is badly wrong.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#162

Post by mr_luc » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:54 PM UTC

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…

I just wanted to call out where you say that it's "hard to prove" that ISPs are purposefully degrading service.

Hard to prove in a court of law, perhaps, but the speeds of access to the businesses being extorted can tell a pretty convincing story.

This chart: http://appledailyreport.com/backend/wp-content/uploads/2014/... paints a nice picture of how ISPs want to extort businesses that are in more profitable lines of work: notice how speeds change from before Comcast started trying to extort from Netflix, to during the negotiations, and after Netflix payed their protection money.

Level3's article also called this out: the ISPs are purposefully, physically, underprovisioning their connections, because it gives them leverage over companies like Netflix.

As to why the internet is different: the internet is not like healthcare. Socialized or not-socialized medicine is obviously not that big of a deal to the future of a nation; both the US and Britain were economically competitive while having very different systems.

In contrast, the Internet obviously matters a great deal to the future. And if various players (hollywood; last-mile ISPs) can manage to appoint themselves gatekeepers and engage in rent-seeking behavior on the internet (in the United States, at any rate), well, HN is acutely aware of what that will mean for the future of innovation, and the future of nations as well.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#163

Post by gorhill » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:54 PM UTC

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…

> "There is only one valid definition of a business purpose: to create a customer."

And yet financial statements are reported in dollar units, not in customer units.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#164

Post by thepumpkin1979 » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:54 PM UTC

I thought they were paying fees to Verizon.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#165

Post by Iftheshoefits » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:54 PM UTC

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?

I draw the line at things that people need in order to fully participate in society. If a good or service doesn't meet that threshold, a private market only solution is likely just fine. Otherwise there ought to be at least some socialized option available.

My list would include: non-elective healthcare, food, housing (same as for food), electricity, water, local/regional transportation (e.g. for commuting to work), internet access and possibly basic internet-capable mobile phones.

Basically "natural monopolies" are certainly all candidates for complete socialization.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#166

Post by SilasX » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:55 PM UTC

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…

I am also frustrated with people who blur a) net neutrality with b) monopolies/undercapacity issues, and so I agree that people should not be so quick to demand ISP-paid extra capacity as solutions to this, especially on grounds of net neutrality.

However, I don't think it follows that Netflix must be treated any differently. The customers are the ones requesting the data. To the extent that anyone (once at capacity) should bear a cost, it should be the requester -- either through a higher fee or a smaller fraction of the pipe.

In practice, that will mean "the more Netflix [or anything] you use, the slower your service". But you shouldn't "short-circuit" the process and just start punishing Netflix's packets directly just for being Netflix. Rather, it should be "this customer endures this cost [broadly defined] for using this much, regardless of what it was for".

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#167

Post by sadris » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:56 PM UTC

Netflix should also be including the phone numbers of city council members in the zip code of the account owner, and a link to example legislation for use of eminent domain seizure on last-mile cables.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#168

Post by drzaiusapelord » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:56 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #147

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is it really fair to treat them like every other company? Interesting question. I guess from my perspective I buy broadband from AT&T and they tell me under no uncertain terms that I have a cap at x amount of gigabytes. As a customer I expect to use all of that. >Guilt tripping Verizon into adding more routers is a major net positive to Netflix's business. As a customer it shocks me they aren't doing so. Yesterday…

You only really pay AT&T for one end of the pipe though. If your end can deliver 100Mbit/s, how responsible are they for the other end of the pipe? Have they met their commitment? This is the biggest part I think people are missing- they are not thinking about the upstream end of the pipe. Maybe it's the same story even when you do consider the upstream, but I'd at least like people to acknowledge that aspect.

I'm a customer, I'm entitled for 500gb as per our agreement. I'm paying for both ends of the pipe.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#169

Post by scrabble » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:56 PM UTC

danudey wrote: post #81

jessaustin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Do any current cableco-provided modems not have built-in wifi? No, but all of their features can be enabled/disabled by the ISP remotely.

I know for my ISP the user names and passwords used by support are all freely available online. I needed a tech to come in because they couldn't troubleshoot my issue (magically fixed the next day) and he was flummoxed when he couldn't log in because his passwords didn't work.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#170

Post by josh2600 » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:56 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #155

icambron wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? I don't see why not. I think it might make more sense to think of it as streaming video, the category of goods, rather than Netflix, the company. So 35% of global internet traffic is people streaming videos. And who cares that it's video; fr…

What if Comcast's network is built around the idea that traffic is exchanged relatively equally? They put in gigabit switches everywhere, a nice fair balanced network. Then Netflix comes along, and suddenly 35% of Comcast's customer traffic is all going to a handful of Netflix DSNs? Suddenly Comcast has to redo the whole connection. They have to buy top-shelf hardware just for Netflix. I don't know if this has happen…

Note: It is definitely not built under that premise, hence why your consumer bandwidth is asymmetrical...

The Tier 1 always wants to ask for more bits than a lower tier operator. If a lower tier operator asks for more bits and tilts the traffic balance, things get interesting. Cogent is not a tier 1 but slings 35% of the internet around at will.

It does cost a lot of money to route Netflix's bits and the narrative is hugely helpful to Netflix. I'm not saying this is correct, I'm simply trying to point out that Netflix has a ton to gain from carriers upgrading their network connections and routers.

Another way to view this: Netflix is demanding huge network upgrades without any additional revenue source.