Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#151

Post by Nacraile » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:48 PM UTC

jostmey wrote: post #123

Whatever happened to the right to free speech? There are of course restrictions to free speech, such as you cannot yell fire in a crowded building unless there really is a fire, but this is not one of those scenarios. The behavior of Verizon and the other ISPs are grossly offensive!

Don't forget about defamation. Sure, you can spread lies in order to do me harm. But I can sue you for the damage done by those lies. Why would you think that lies that damage a reputation are substantially different from vandalism that damages a building?

Not that I think Verizon actually has a strong case for defamation. Netflix should have little difficulty arguing that they had good reason to believe that their claims are true. I don't think this is going to end well for Verizon.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#152

Post by supermatt » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

oconnore wrote: post #119

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…

s/last mile/first mile/

As the issue is data flowing FROM Netflix TO the end user, I think your 'correction' may be incorrect, as it is indeed the 'last mile' that is in discussion.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#153

Post by giovannibajo1 » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

sixQuarks wrote: post #130

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…

You're looking at this all wrong. It's not that Netflix is taking up 35% of all bandwidth. It's that CONSUMERS are choosing to spend 35% of their consumption on Netflix. The ISPs are punishing consumers for their choices - it's just ridiculous.

On the other hand, can you swear that Netflix is doing all that it can to minimize bandwidth?

There's a conflict of interest: Netflix has a vested interested in provided lightly-compressed, very-high-resolution, bandwidth-hungry movies to its subscribers, especially if it obtains 100% free peering that it demands, as bandwidth would be free for them. On the other hand, ISPs are forced to upgrade network any time Netflix unilaterally decides to increase the bitrate of the movies, without this bringing any benefit to their bottom line.

For instance, if Netflix halved the bitrate of all their movies, subscribers will complain, but surely they would be able to deliver them without any buffering to everybody, and at the same time to keep free peering agreement and whatnot; they would go from 35% of total US bandwidth to 17%, and ISPs would be satisfying their customers' choice.

So where do you draw the line? Surely Netflix can increase the bitrate at will, at any time; should they be "allowed" to do it any time they want, while keeping a free peering agreement? Should the ISPs be forced to upgrade their network every time?

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#154

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

sixQuarks wrote: post #130

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…

You're looking at this all wrong. It's not that Netflix is taking up 35% of all bandwidth. It's that CONSUMERS are choosing to spend 35% of their consumption on Netflix. The ISPs are punishing consumers for their choices - it's just ridiculous.

[deleted]

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#155

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:50 PM UTC

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…

What if Comcast's network is built around the idea that traffic is exchanged relatively equally? They put in gigabit switches everywhere, a nice fair balanced network.

Then Netflix comes along, and suddenly 35% of Comcast's customer traffic is all going to a handful of Netflix DSNs? Suddenly Comcast has to redo the whole connection. They have to buy top-shelf hardware just for Netflix.

I don't know if this has happened, but it's an interesting thought experiment to see how "just one company" could place disproportionate burden/cost on the ISP, as compared to the case where traffic travels to & from many different entities.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#156

Post by poopsintub » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:51 PM UTC

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."

The question is why didn't they try this with Comcast before shelling out millions of dollars.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#157

Post by whoopdedo » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:52 PM UTC

drusenko wrote: post #131

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…

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…

If there is imbalance between the traffic Comcast is sending to other networks versus what they receive that's because of the policy to forbid residential customers from hosting their own servers. Comcast created this situation because they wanted to force the internet to behave more like television.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#158

Post by Nacraile » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:52 PM UTC

tikumo wrote: post #145

Netflix could also make their buffering settings more advanced. i want a bigger buffer if my internet is unstable, and it should be transparant how netflix buffers..

If it takes 2 hours to send you 1 hour of content, no amount of buffering is going to give you the instant gratification you want.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#159

Post by josh2600 » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:53 PM UTC

drusenko wrote: post #131

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…

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…

This is also kind of relevant given that Cogent bears Netflix's bits and Cisco benefits from that bearing:

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-1019435.html

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#160

Post by hga » Thu, Jun 05, 2014, 8:53 PM UTC

zeidrich wrote: post #92

aresant wrote: post #12

Here is the actual Cease & Desist: http://recode.net/2014/06/05/verizon-threatens-netflix-with-...

It's interesting how Verizon talks about the "panoply of middle-man networks" when that is really the Internet. Verizon is a walled city. Verizon entices people to live in it's city and pay its rent because it says you can get deliveries from all over the world in the blink of an eye if you live in our city. It has high speed trains, and wide thoroughfares. It also has a small gate that can let a few cars in at a tim…

WRT that "panoply of middle-man networks" ... it pretty much never works that way. Certainly not with a big player like Netflix, they're going to be buying from providers that peer with Verizon, vs. ones that have to pay transit fees to providers that then have peering with Verizon. The latter would make absolutely no sense in any way, technical or financial.

They're also doing this in concert with AWS, right? Another huge player.