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

241–250 of 361 posts

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#241

Post by notdonspaulding »

oconnore wrote: post #220
notdonspaulding wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"last mile" doesn't have to do with which direction the bits are flowing (although there may be a loose correlation). It has to do with the fact that the customer is on the outside edge of the network. A connection from Verizon to Cogent isn't considered last mile because there are other networks on the other side of Cogent. Since you aren't providing a connection from your ISP to some other network, you are the last…

From the point of view of a carrier, yes. I think you missed the point.

At the risk of diving too deep into a semantic discussion...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_mile

"Last Mile" is a common telco industry term. It's not about framing, it's the correct term for the connection. It does not connote any specific value to the connection relative to others, nor is it derogatory. It's simply saying where in the network the connection lives. A "last mile" connection is not an inter-network connection, it's a specific link within the network that your ISP has built from the rest of their network to you, the individual customer.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#242

Post by asn0 »

lnanek2 wrote: post #94
dkhenry wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the carriers really want competition so they will encourage other phones when they can.

I've yet to meet any carrier who wants competition, for anything. Their ideal world would be that they would decide which phone the customer can have, what limited service the customer can buy, and how much it is, and take-it-or-leave it. That's how AT&T worked, and every major carrier today is a spin-off from AT&T and still thinks pretty much the same way.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#243

Post by wtallis »

josh2600 wrote: post #150
DrJokepu wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no, not the "maximising shareholder value" argument again! This argument has three fundamental problems. First, it is difficult to tell what would "maximise shareholder value". Second, it misses the fact that something that could "maximise shareholder value" on short term could very well minimise "shareholder value" on long term (or the other way around). Third, and this is the biggest one, people involved in a pr…

1) Agreed. 2) Agreed. 3) All of the big Telcos are public, but your point stands. To be explicit, I wholeheartedly agree with you about humans making pseudo-random decisions. I'm trying to explain the dynamics of the Telco position, from their vantage point because I think it helps the discussion to view things from other angles.

The telcos are publicly traded, but not publicly owned in the sense of being government-owned and regulated. And that's one of the bigger problems here - the last-mile physical infrastructure should probably be publicly owned.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#244

Post by vitd »

ganeumann wrote: post #134
djcapelis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to play devil's advocate then let's advocate for all the devils. If Comcast wants to offer their customers video over a traditional cable network, they pay content providers. Why should the Internet be different? Shouldn't ISPs be paying people who provide the content their customers are buying?

Remember that when the cable companies started they were competing with over-the-air TV. To convince people to switch to cable, they had to provide something valuable enough to justify the cost. Content was that thing. The reason ISPs can charge both the customers and the content providers is because we have no other choice. Where I live I have a choice of two providers: Comcast or Verizon. My choices are: use one of…

Actually, it was both content and quality. They used to advertise that a cable signal was clearer than one from an antenna and stood up to weather, etc.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#245

Post by Osiris »

I believe that the solution is forcibly separate infrastructure from service. The same company that provides the infrastructure should not be the same company that provides the service to the customer.

There are several nations around the world where this is the case. It reduces the barriers to entry for ISPs, creating an environment where there are dozens of ISPs to choose from with differing levels of customer service and pricing plans.

The primary problem with Comcast and Verizon is that they can leverage their customer base as a negotiation tactic rather than solely on the state of the network.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#246

Post by pionar »

josh2600 wrote: post #198
pionar wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your wireless network service is best effort. Wouldn't intentionally throttling and/or not keeping up your capacity intentionally be a violation of this "best effort" doctrine? Not arguing, honest question.

To the best of my knowledge, Net Neutrality doesn't apply to wireless networks.

Ah, I misread that. Sorry.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#247

Post by dclowd9901 »

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…

> That is to say, if Netflix is really the sole driver of Network upgrades, why does Verizon have to subsidize their costs of business?

Because that's Verizon's business: to provide internet. That's not up to Netflix, who is an internet-based content provider. If Verizon wants to charge the fuck out of their customers to beef up their network so they are the best Netflix streamer out there, then they're free to do that.

People want Netflix because Netflix is doing its job. People can't get Netflix because Verizon's not doing its job. Simple as that.

To put it another way, if Netflix was the bottleneck (and thus, the problem), Verizon would only have to show that their bandwidth from Netflix is bottlenecked by Netflix' lack of serving capacity. Of course they can't show that, because that's not the case, and thus not the problem.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#248

Post by marincounty »

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…

As to the shareholder--Max/profits argument I use my ISP as an example. I own shares of stock. I will never by a share of Comcast stock for these reasons: I hate the company. I have hated the company since it's inception. I believe it should be split up by the federal government-- it's a monopoly in my house. Comcast employees hate Comcast. Comcast got much worse when they found out they could overcharge/lie for accesses to the Internet. Many investors don't invest in companies they Hate.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#249

Post by jeremycole »

There is an easy and practical solution to this whole problem: If Verizon doesn't like the amount of bandwidth their customers use watching Netflix, they can always choose to block Netflix completely on their network, and inform their customers that they've done so. It would be honest, clean, fair, etc. Customers would be paying for exactly what they are getting, everyone could be happy with the arrangement.

Of course there would be a massive revolt of their customers if they did so. Because their customers WANT Netflix. So instead, Verizon will try very hard to make it "sorta" work and blame Netflix while trying to get money from them.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#250

Post by dclowd9901 »

icambron wrote: post #144
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…

>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…

To your last point, the problem with a subscription service (any subscription service) is that the more it's used, the less its profit margins. A company that is subscription based actually has an interest in their customers using the service as little as possible. It's completely backward (see: gyms, insurance, etc.)

The only way to incentivize a company to provide the best service possible is to tie the use of the service to its cost. I wouldn't mind paying, say $2/GB for service if it meant that Comcast's incentives were in line.

That would even have an external benefit on creating competition among streaming companies to have the best compression algorithms. Efficiency and speed become directly correlated to the service and its value.

Post reply on HN