Live data from Hacker News

Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

cnbc.com

231–240 of 361 posts

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#231

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.

It's interesting that you seem to view providing Internet access as a natural monopoly. While (from what I see as an outsider) it seems to be common in the US for households to have only one practical ISP available, that is certainly not the only model possible.

For example, here in the UK, we have the formerly nationalised telephone network provider required to allow individual ISPs access to key parts of its infrastructure via local loop unbundling, so those ISPs compete for the contracts with individual customers. And while that infrastructure is indeed common and so in a sense a monopoly at that level, there are also multiple cable companies and mobile networks with completely independent infrastructure all the way down. There have even been a couple of impressive success stories where installing high speed broadband infrastructure was too expensive or risky in a certain geographic area for any of the big commercial providers to take it on but the local community devised their own solution, sometimes even finishing up with a better connection than what most of us get in big cities.

In other news, prices for Internet access in the UK seem to be dramatically cheaper than most places in the US.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#232

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…

But then doesn't that mean that it's also easier to put a cache in front of those overused switches and solve the problem much more easily? I guess the core issue here is that, from a customer's point of view, the ISP is selling me inet access, regardless of where the data actually goes, so it is the ISP's responsibility to keep their end of the bargain (to provide inet access). As a customer I should not care how is…

Good point about U > T. It also happens in Gym business where they oversell their gym capacity betting that 80% of their customers will be too lazy to come exercise everyday. Now imagine if I sell a motivation pill that makes you go to gym everyday. It would be absurd if Gym companies send me a cease and desist letter because i am overburdening their facilities because everyone who takes my pill wants to use their gyms everyday.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#233
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sort of the whole point... Lack of net neutrality leads to ISPs slowing down specific traffic (such as Netflix but not, say, Youtube).

I don't think that is how it works. The letter pretty clearly explains that Netflix uses for delivery third parties that have insufficient bandwidth to Verizon. Verizon did not -- at least according to this letter -- actively DO anything to slow Netflix down.

I haven't been following this too closely (I don't live in the US) so I apologise if what I'm about to say it absolute rubbish but... my understanding is Netflix use Level3 for transit and the problem is Verizon refuse to upgrade their peering capacity with Level3.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#234
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, whenever I miss the payment on my TalkTalk bill, the whole local network goes down, not just Internet access. I've been meaning to get a cheapo router to remedy. People just don't know that you can have wifi for free, especially when you've got adverts from O2 and such that 2gb 3G and " unlimited wifi". I dunno if it's the same in the US but apparently it's some typically restricted resource that many providers…

> " unlimited wifi".

I just felt a disturbance in the force. Damn, that sentence triggers a whole range of evil ideas I hadn't yet thought of.

Hmm, hold on while I check with my ISP whether I can downgrade my WiFi data limit for cheaper service... or would that just be giving them ideas? :p

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#235

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 is not using the capacity, they are selling access to the content. The customers are using 35% of the traffic. The customers who pay for access to content they want. Most people want Netflix because it is a sea/wonderland of content and is replacing tv. Netflix is not consuming the content, they are providing it, the customers, who pay for the access, are consuming the content and bandwidth. Content services…

"Most people want Netflix because it is a sea/wonderland of content and is replacing tv."

And that's in direct competition with these big last mile providers. Cablecos by definition, and the two big telcos have their own FiOS and U-verse "TV"/"cable" video offerings (even if AT&T's coverage is meager, and both stopped their build outs except for contractual requirements when the Great Recession started).

Which provides additional strong motivation to provide less than stellar service when handling Netflix packets.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#236

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.

Or when your ISP 'requires' Windows

And modem/router/switch boxes that come with Windows 7 logos.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#237

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.

It's interesting that you seem to view providing Internet access as a natural monopoly. While (from what I see as an outsider) it seems to be common in the US for households to have only one practical ISP available, that is certainly not the only model possible. For example, here in the UK, we have the formerly nationalised telephone network provider required to allow individual ISPs access to key parts of its infras…

> And while that infrastructure is indeed common and so in a sense a monopoly at that level, there are also multiple cable companies and mobile networks with completely independent infrastructure all the way down. There have even been a couple of impressive success stories where installing high speed broadband infrastructure was too expensive or risky in a certain geographic area for any of the big commercial providers to take it on but the local community devised their own solution, sometimes even finishing up with a better connection than what most of us get in big cities.

This is what I'm advocating for. A public last mile that any service provider can use.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#238
post #37

Verizon fios customer here. There has been a noticeable drop in the quality of streams in the past couple of months. The picture went from excellent > barely functional(after the FCC ruling) > watchable(after the peering agreement) still not great. Kudos to Netflix.

For scientific purposes, could you buy a VPN service for a month and see if that makes it work better? Because then it's just super evil anti-net neutrality on Verizon's part and not actual congestion.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#239
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…

It's not just Netflix, it's also YouTube (http://www.google.com/get/videoqualityreport/), and Level3 (http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observations-inte...) and you can be sure those aren't the exception.

Instead of fulfilling their obligations to provide advertised bandwidth to their paying customers (who only pay them in order to access the content provided by someone else), the last-mile providers are using their customers as hostages while they negotiate ransom from the content providers. While they also report record profits (sending their customer's payments back to stockholders instead of into the network), because the economics of their business are compelling on both the consumer side (low expectations, minimal support costs, essentially no competition) and on the technology side (network technologies increase capacity-per-$ as fast or faster than traffic grows).

Oh, also, 99% of the last-mile providers operate a sanctioned monopoly that has let them build and grow their networks with essentially guaranteed income from rate-payers and essentially no competition. Hence adding Internet is relatively low-cost and highly-profitable, but apparently not profitable enough.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#240
post #77

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…

This is going under the false assumption that when I bought bandwidth from my ISP they didn't _really_ need to provide me with that bandwidth for realzies. This isn't netflix driving network upgrades this is Verizon customers driving network upgrades. If VZ didn't promise the customers the bandwidth they wouldn't need to upgrade their backhaul to provide it. I mean it would be like Verizon wireless charging apple to…

This is a two way street. Verizon customers are demanding content from Netflix. Peering agreements are based on a mutual benefit, in that both sides will use relatively the same amount of bandwidth. Now the bandwidth usage is lopsided towards Netflix, and Verizon is stating this is no longer a mutually beneficial relationship.
Post reply on HN