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

131–140 of 361 posts

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#131

Post by drusenko »

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 not as far off as you think. It seems very few commenters to this thread understand how the internet actually operates from a business perspective.

When you install a server in a colo, you don't get free transit. You find a transit provider (like Level3, Cogent, or NTT) and you pay them for bandwidth. You can understand this very intuitively as most hosting services (like AWS) will charge you for bandwidth.

As a service provider (like Weebly), you are paying your own transit provider for a certain amount of bandwidth, and they are covering the costs of delivering that bandwidth to (usually) anybody globally and the costs of maintaining their network.

If a network gets large enough, they may often negotiate peering agreements with other networks. So Level3 and Cogent may have a peering agreement, or Level3 and Comcast may have a peering agreement. These are generally set up when two networks deliver roughly the same amount of traffic to each other, or it's considered beneficial to both parties to get the networks closer, and it simplifies the working relationship.

These peering agreements can often become contentious when they become imbalanced. Very early on, I remember a fight Cogent and France Telecom had over peering -- FT felt like they were getting the raw end of the deal, and de-peered with Cogent. Cogent refused to pay another transit provider for access to FT's network and so traffic from the Cogent network to FT would drop. They resolved about a week later, with lots of unhappy customers caught in the middle.

As you can see, it's simply not the case that (a) service providers never pay for bandwidth because the end-user already pays for bandwidth and (b) peering / free transit is guaranteed.

Maybe I'm not understanding the nuances here, but it seems to me like Netflix is taking an ideological stance to hide behind the fact that they are trying to negotiate a better business agreement for themselves.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#132

Post by DrJokepu »

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…

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 private company (employees, directors, shareholders) often have an agenda that goes beyond simply making more money. That's because they are human beings.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#133

Post by toomuchtodo »

josh2600 wrote: post #125
toomuchtodo wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I completely agree with you. The last mile should be public, with anyone permitted to provide service to customers (similar to the old DSL/CLEC/ILEC model).

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#134

Post by ganeumann »

djcapelis wrote: post #61
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 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 these two, or have no Internet. Not much of a choice.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#135

Post by anoncow »

Someone please clarify my doubts. When I run a server, I have to pay for bandwidth costs. For eg. My website hosted on linode gets me 20TB of data transfer limit. I expect end users to be able to view content worth 20 tb of up/down data transfer. Netflix runs its own servers but the ISP providing connectivity must be already charging Netflix for a certain bandwidth and data transfer limit. If the ISP is charging for data transfer already, I expect the ISP to provide the entire service. For eg. Let us assume that Verizon charges netflix 1 usd per tb of data transfer. And Netflix uses 20000tb of data in a month. Then Netflix owes Verizon 20000 usd a month. And Verizon has to serve the data according to the bandwidth agreed to.

Is Netflix not paying Verizon for the bandwidth and data transfer?

If Netflix is not paying Verizon then why does my hosting provider charge me for bandwidth and data transfer?

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#136

Post by mox1 »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #48
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.

What do they mean WiFi won't work? How is that anything other than a blatant lie? They probably mean the WiFi built into the cable modem.

I'm honestly not sure what the Representative meant. This is just what my mother told me (non tech person, she could have misunderstood). I left out the part where the rep told my mother she was already on the cheapest plan. Fortunately they had just mailed their yearly "price sheet" that listed Economy Plus Internet, with prices. Magically when my mother mentioned this by name, it became available.

My general sense is that these types of conversations happen daily at Comcast and such...I've heard too many similar stories over the years.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#137

Post by bluedino »

scrabble wrote: post #39
mox1 wrote: post #21

It's frustrating that Verizon and friends can make grandiose statements in their advertising about "unlimited bandwidth", "faster wifi" ,"stream 5 things at a time", etc, etc. Or lie to customers, My mother just called Comcast to downgrade her service and the CS Rep said "WiFi won't work with our Economy Plus internet plan" Yet when another entity does something as simple as showing an error message that casts them i…

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.

Or when your ISP 'requires' Windows

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#138

Post by couradical »

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 think the issue is more that the ISPs are demanding payment at both ends of the tunnel. They charge you and I for transit (best-effort though it may be) and then when a bulk of their customers traffic turns to a popular network, attempt to charge that network to upgrade their port speed. (something which is customarily handled for free between peered carriers since both are charging their customers) Think of it this way - it's as if I pay UPS to send packages and then they request fees from the cities they deliver to, or they only deliver 100 packages a day to the municipality. That would be insane, and laughed out of court, but that's what Comcast/Verizon are doing.

Also, intentionally physically underprovisioning the connection is throttling, plain and simple. You are limiting the amount of traffic that can traverse that network boundary to 10G/40G/Whatever your port speed is. What difference does it make if I do it in software or simply refuse to bind more ports to the team?

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#139

Post by theandrewbailey »

ianamartin wrote: post #9

I love what Netflix is doing with this. Not so much because I am totally convinced that they are 100% right and the Cable companies are 100% wrong. Mostly just because I 100% hate all the cable companies.

Do you consider Verizon a cable company? I don't.

Come to think of it, what really separates cable and telephone companies these days? Most of them sell the same things as the others (TV, internet, phone), and the distinction is largely historical and technology based.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#140

Post by sliverstorm »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #60
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…

Netflix isn't sending their data to customers unsolicited. Customers are requesting that data, through a pipe which they have already paid for . It is unfair for Verizon, or any other ISP, to ask to be paid twice for the same bits. What bits I am asking for, as a customer, shouldn't make a damn bit of difference.

There's two ends to the pipe though.

To my understanding, the upstream ends are linked largely thanks to peering, which is based on mutual benefit. At the upstream level, nobody charges other providers because everybody is interacting with everybody- sort of like, "I bought this round, but I know you'll be buying the next" so you don't worry about balancing the books.

Then Netflix comes along, chews up 35% of internet traffic, and basically takes a disproportionate piece of the pie. If I've got everything in my head right, this is against the spirit of how peering is supposed to work, and so it doesn't surprise me if spats start to develop upstream.

If Verizon is unhappy because they have to develop their last-mile network to meet promised speeds, that's Verizon's problem. But if Verizon is unhappy because the upstream is becoming distorted and they are becoming beholden to just one peer (Netflix) instead of an environment of free, balanced exchange- maybe that's not Verizon's problem.

Post reply on HN