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

201–210 of 361 posts

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#201

Post by leccine »

Well I think we should introduce a tax on commuters because as it turns out they are the 90% of the highway traffic.If they want to get to work on time they can use the fast lane for a little extra and if they don't pay we just make them drive 10 miles per hour. I think this is fair. Ohh btw. if they complain about it, it is just them trying to influence policy that was set by good corporations so I don't understand why we should change it. :)

(please look up irony on wikipedia before downvote, thanks)

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#202

Post by ecnahc515 »

anoncow wrote: post #193
sliverstorm wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix has their own ISP. Netflix's ISP and Verizon pay eachother nothing to exchange traffic (called peering). Verizon wakes up one day and says, "Shit out of all the ISPs we peer with, Netflix and their ISP is responsible for 35% of our traffic, we have to do huge upgrades on the link to them, and they aren't paying us a dime" That's my understanding of what is going on.

Does Netflix's ISP pay anything to anyone? If no why does linode make me pay for data transfer? Thanks for replying (Linode is just an example)

To prevent you from abusing the network and keep their data center not congested, and have other customers service not degraded by your uses.

Linode isn't an ISP, they still have to deal with ISPs for the end user, which is why it is different.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#203

Post by graylights »

infogulch wrote: post #69

How do we get ISPs classified as common carriers? Sue their pants off for the copyright infringement of their customers (and all the other illegal things customers can do). This why common carriers exist. They trade ultimate control over the transfer of content and treat it equally for the protections of being indemnified from the content itself. This is why the U.S. Postal Service can't be prosecuted for transportin…

They already have immunity for users' infringements via the Safe Harbor provisions of DMCA. The safe harbor provisions requirements are a lot less stringent then Common Carrier.

They must register as an ISP, can't modify data, and can't directly profit from infringement or promote it. Certain ISPs already have done things that should get them deregistered though, such as compressing images, replacing ads or injecting content. For example, comcast injects their copyright warnings into html pages transfered.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#204

Post by sp332 »

josh2600 wrote: post #170
sliverstorm wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 happen…

Note: It is definitely not built under that premise, hence why your consumer bandwidth is asymmetrical... The Tier 1 always wants to ask for more bits than a lower tier operator. If a lower tier operator asks for more bits and tilts the traffic balance, things get interesting. Cogent is not a tier 1 but slings 35% of the internet around at will. It does cost a lot of money to route Netflix's bits and the narrative is…

silverstorm didn't say anything about symmetrical. If Comcast assumes that the various interconnect points are relatively even in traffic usage, but then the few that go to Netflix start getting congested (leaving the rest relatively light), they're going to have to upgrade just a few spots with really expensive equipment just to deal with Netflix traffic.

Edit: not sure why I'm getting downvotes since silverstorm clarified exactly what I wrote

I am not talking about imbalance in U/D, but rather imbalance in destination (or source). If tremendous amounts of traffic is going to or from just a small handful of nodes, you need tremendous routers & pipes going to those nodes.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#205

Post by sixQuarks »

giovannibajo1 wrote: post #153
sixQuarks wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Netf…

Fair point. The issue obviously isn't 100% black and white. But what the ISPs are currently doing is not the way to go about it, IMO.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#206

Post by sixQuarks »

giovannibajo1 wrote: post #153
sixQuarks wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Netf…

Fair point. The issue obviously isn't 100% black and white. But what the ISPs are currently doing is not the way to go about it, IMO.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#207

Post by notdonspaulding »

supermatt wrote: post #152
oconnore wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"last mile" doesn't have to do with which direction the bits are flowing (although there may be a loose correlation). It has to do with the fact that the customer is on the outside edge of the network. A connection from Verizon to Cogent isn't considered last mile because there are other networks on the other side of Cogent. Since you aren't providing a connection from your ISP to some other network, you are the last mile.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#208

Post by hga »

SilasX wrote: post #166
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…

I am also frustrated with people who blur a) net neutrality with b) monopolies/undercapacity issues, and so I agree that people should not be so quick to demand ISP-paid extra capacity as solutions to this, especially on grounds of net neutrality. However, I don't think it follows that Netflix must be treated any differently. The customers are the ones requesting the data. To the extent that anyone (once at capacity)…

But net neutrality comes into play because these big last mile providers are also offering their customers video services. That's what cable companies started out doing, after all, and Verizon and to a lessor (much lessor, I gather) extent AT&T have implemented the same business model with their FiOS and U-verse offerings.

People getting their video from Netflix threatens this business, and it's pretty obvious to me that's one of the reasons we're seeing all this now, especially with Netflix getting big enough in streaming to a) pose a greater threat b) potentially have a lot of voters on their side (particularly relevant because the last mile providers are all government enabled monopolies, cable companies at the municipality level, telcos at the state and Federal level).

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#209

Post by malkia »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #120
josh2600 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Prisons

Orphanages

Mental institutions

Defense

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#210

Post by notdonspaulding »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #120
josh2600 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Education, Police, Fire, Healthcare do not have natural monopolies.

Still a good list to have around so we can argue about where the line should be drawn. Kudos!

Post reply on HN