Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

Post by baddox » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:24 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…

Post by fastest963 » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:26 PM UTC

notdonspaulding wrote: post #68

jusben1369 wrote: post #45

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…

Post by josh2600 » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:27 PM UTC

eisa01 wrote: post #65

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 it wasnt't Netflix, it would be another streaming service or a hundred. The total capacity required would still be the same.

Post by jamesaguilar » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:28 PM UTC

olegbl wrote: post #85

jamesaguilar wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting observation re: FiOS's performance with other video services. I'm not a huge fan of the incumbent ISPs in this country, but they do have something of a point there.

That's sort of the whole point... Lack of net neutrality leads to ISPs slowing down specific traffic (such as Netflix but not, say, Youtube).

Post by zacinbusiness » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:28 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…