Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 351 posts

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#151

Post by wmf »

briandh wrote: post #92
angersock wrote: post #8

Wait wait wait...so, a company that has something like 60-70% of the market in total monopoly now has successfully ransomed another company who depends on their services? Motherfuckers.

Where are you getting those numbers? It would seem [1] that Comcast has about 24% broadband market share. Subtracting the 3 million or so planned divested lines, even a post-merger Comcast would only have about 34% of the market -- which may be too high for comfort, but is nowhere near 60-70% [1] http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/usbroadbandsubscr...

Each coverage area is a separate market, and AFAIK cable companies have 60-70% share within their areas (mostly because cable is so much less bad than DSL, so the market is working somewhat).

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#152

Post by insaneirish »

linuxhansl wrote: post #76

So it begins. The end of the neutral internet. I am already paying Comcast for access to the internet! Why does Netflix have to pay on top it? That said, I have Netflix and Comcast and I have never experienced any issues. Edit: Actually I realize, this is an agreement to allow Netflix to colocate some of their servers at Comcast hubs. So it is not actually that bad.

> The end of the neutral internet.

"Neutral" is a vague term that in this circumstance conveys no actual meaning.

Settlement free peering is the exception, not the rule. Almost everyone pays for access to the Internet, whether it's buying transit or peering with settlement.

Nothing new to see here, move along.

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#153

Post by justincormack »

TranceMan wrote: post #114
justincormack wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cabling is a natural monopoly. Who is allowed to service you over it is not. Thats why many countries have some degree of unbundling of service and provision of wires, eg I can get many providers of ADSL here over the same phone lines that are owned by a monopoly provider. Alas not for fibre though yet (UK).

I only became aware that you can get Fibre from other providers this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271128

Not really. The unbundling is restricted (you have to use BT equipment) and there is no price cap that BT can charge. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/02/bt_fibre_eu/ from the time. Eventually we will get full LLU. Ofcom does claim http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/04/25/uk-broadband-competitio... there are 80 providers of fibre, but the terms are not attractive that I can find. I dont mind paying a bit more for non BT but not if its capped and has the same congestion as BT as its on their equipment...

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#154

Post by krschultz »

gonzo wrote: post #122
JohnTHaller wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, my building here in NYC, I can get Time Warner or DSL (Verizon or from a reseller). That's it. Lots of us are stuck with 1 or 2 crappy options. I have overpriced Time Warner and a Verizon hotspot as a backup because the TW cable connection goes down about once a month. The other option is DSL which is too slow to do work and was down a week of my 30 day trial when I checked it out years back. Keep in mind that…

I'm in Austin, TX. We have two FTTH providers (AT&T, Grande). Grande offers 1Gbps now, AT&T is 300Mbps now, 1Gbps this summer. Time Warner offers 300Mbps now (DOCSIS). Google fiber is being deployed this year (1Gbps).

Austin is the best case scenario in the country.

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#156

Post by matthuggins »

pushrax wrote: post #49
zeckalpha wrote: post #3

Is there a non pay-walled version available? This may mark the end of net neutrality.

Here's a direct link using Google as the referrer: http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+En...

This worked for me, thanks!

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#157

Post by gtirloni »

One way to make this ugly real fast is for content providers like Netflix/Amazon to completely block subscribers from ISPs that apply QoS to negatively impact them.

Say something like "we can't provide a great experience so we think you should have no experience at all because it wouldn't be fair with us and with you. we are sorry." and make it explicit that it's because of the ISP they are using.

The ISP think they are selling gold when they are more likely selling a commodity. Sure, at some locations it's indeed like gold, but how much of that is artificially enforced?

These pipes aren't worth much if there is no content flowing through them.

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#158

Post by simplimedia »

SwellJoe wrote: post #134
tylermac1 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to pay extra for those services though. They come with your cable subscription.

My cable subscription is "Internet". I do not have a cable television subscription, and have no desire to have one; even back when Comcast was offering cable TV for $1 added to the Internet price and seemed shocked that I wouldn't want it...I replied, "I don't have a TV. WTF would I do with it?"

For a business...it was $300 cheaper to install Comcast with TV than without as of Oct 2013. I pay $2/month for TV but got free install and I can cancel TV in a year. It seems to me they need another mouth to feed.

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#159

Post by rayiner »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #136
nailer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ireland and Britain enjoy better competition since they're a smaller area. Australia and the US OTOH are terrible since the population is so spread out (Australia's slightly better as the population is mainly coastal).

That's a cop-out. Services in the UK are either over the Virgin cable (HFC) network, or BT-owned copper/FTTC. The reason there's competition is a solid system of regulation which ensures fair and reasonable access to the infrastructure.

That's quite a different posture though. BT was a government owned corp, and when it was privatized, investors bought it subject to the restrictions in its license. In comparison, the cable companies built their infrastructure against the backdrop of deregulation, in which it was illegal for them to be granted exclusive franchises.

Re: Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam

#160

Post by absconditus »

nailer wrote: post #77
k-mcgrady wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "Many areas only have Comcast service!" Do a lot of people in the US only have access to one or two ISP's?? If so why? I'm in a not particularly urban part of Ireland and I can choose between at least 5 ISP's, decent speeds, and a good variety of prices.

Ireland and Britain enjoy better competition since they're a smaller area. Australia and the US OTOH are terrible since the population is so spread out (Australia's slightly better as the population is mainly coastal).

If this defense had any merit, then there should be far better options in large American cities. This is not the case.
Post reply on HN