> "So Netflix is throwing up a 'The AT&T network is crowded right now' message. Meanwhile, Youtube is playing 1080p no problem." Netflix should try to explain that in the error messages too.
AT&T can choose to throttle specific services.
Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
111–120 of 361 posts
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#112Earlier 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…
> It's also very hard to prove that Verizon is throttling, versus, say, simply physically underprovisioning the connection.
It doesn't matter either way, in the end the experience is the same.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#113Awesome 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…
Customers should pay for the bandwidth they use.
ISPs have been miss-selling Internet connectivity for many years - "UNLIMITED!!" "FAST!!" "CHEAP!!" - and now they ( and their customers) are reaping that harvest.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#114Earlier 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?
I've never thought of it that way. That's a very interesting way to look at it! Isn't netflix driving business up for ISPs? The faster ISP gets business? I could be mistaken though.
Aren't content providers always driving up prices for content carriers? Consumers are paying for content delivery and if your business can't deliver the quantity or quality they want and someone switches to your competitors because of it that's your problem.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#115Awesome 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…
> 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 it was Netflix, today its every kid with an Xbox1 or PS4 buying games digitally as buying physical media is out of style. What's a typical game nowadays? 20gb? That's the equivalant of many netflix movies right there, all at once.
What does tomorrow hold? Why aren't they prepared for this?
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#1161) Why are ISPs not classified as Common Carriers? This needs to happen like now.
2) This makes me want to get a Netflix subscription just to support them, knowing I would never watch a single video from them. I'm signing up right now. Go Netflix!
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#117Earlier 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 don't have a natural monopoly.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#118Earlier 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'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.
Is it really the same people arguing for that? First and foremost, the telecom industry is nothing like the healthcare industry, and they shouldn't be reasoned about in the same way. Common carrier status has precise laws and legal meaning surrounding it. Please don't confuse it with socialized medicine.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#119Earlier 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…
s/last mile/first mile/
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#120Earlier 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?
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.