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'm more concerned about the fact that everyone seems to give priority to speedtest traffic, then abruptly chokes streaming HD. I'd really like Netflix to offer their own speedtest site that looks to the network almost exactly like streaming video, so the ISPs couldn't game the measurements.
Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
261–270 of 361 posts
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
Education doesn't, but police and fire definitely do: police because beat cops reduce crime for everyone, so they're a natural monopoly. Fire as well, since stopping houses burning down helps stop the entire neighborhood (especially when you have close-together row houses) burning down. Healthcare is arguably a public good, at least as far as vaccinations and contagious diseases go, since herd immunity is a large way…
A natural monopoly doesn't mean it provides a public good, it means that a single entity can provide the service more efficiently than multiple competing entities.
Yeah you're right. I'm conflating the two and being confused. I apologize.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 happen…
It's not credible to suppose that Comcast's network is built around equal exchange of traffic. The broadband connections they provide are wildly asymmetrical, often by an order of magnitude.
And then there's this: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/bittor...
"[W]hen we ask [ISPs] if we too would qualify for no-fee interconnect if we changed our service to upload as much data as we download—thus filling their upstream networks and nearly doubling our total traffic—there is an uncomfortable silence," Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wrote last month. "That's because the ISP argument isn't sensible. Big ISPs aren't paying money to services like online backup that generate more upstream than downstream traffic. Data direction, in other words, has nothing to do with costs."
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
To your last point, the problem with a subscription service (any subscription service) is that the more it's used, the less its profit margins. A company that is subscription based actually has an interest in their customers using the service as little as possible . It's completely backward (see: gyms, insurance, etc.) The only way to incentivize a company to provide the best service possible is to tie the use of the…
Every company has an incentive to provide lower quality goods for an higher price. There's nothing special about ISPs, their quality just includes bandwidth. The way you align the incentives is by having competition, so that the ISPs with bigger pipes gain customers. Paying more would solve nothing, though I'm sure they would tell you otherwise.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#265There is an easy and practical solution to this whole problem: If Verizon doesn't like the amount of bandwidth their customers use watching Netflix, they can always choose to block Netflix completely on their network, and inform their customers that they've done so. It would be honest, clean, fair, etc. Customers would be paying for exactly what they are getting, everyone could be happy with the arrangement. Of cours…
Perhaps I've misunderstood the situation in the US, but isn't the problem that Verizon are a de-facto monopoly in many markets? If customers can't say "screw you" then all Verizon need to do is avoid getting hammered by the DOJ anti-trust department.
Many customers, but perhaps not many markets.
I'm in the same position with AT&T, in a residence that's at the edge of two cities, but is unincorporated (not part of any city, just the county, state, and the USA itself). No cable service is available, the deals they cut with the two cities don't cover me. Those deals make them local monopolies, long ago the original AT&T (which got split up, and then recombined into AT&T, Verizon and Century) arranged a Federal and state level monopoly, except of course for many rural and otherwise expensive to serve markets, which are served by smaller telcos.
I have at least one option for a WISP, but it's awful; at least AT&T's ADSL here is reliable. For now, AT&T really doesn't want it's landline business, wants to drop it for more profitable wireless. Ditto Verizon.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many of us had to bluff our way through the first gatekeeper on tech support like this? Tech: "Could you please unplug your computer for 20 seconds and restart it?" Me: "Okay. . Okay, it's back" Or this gem? Tech: "What browser are you using?" Me: " Internet Explorer 6".
I just want to point out that Teksavvy have in my experience proven to be FANTASTIC at helping with linux internet-related problems. I now refuse to subscribe to any ISP who does not offer Linux support, and will in fact check to make sure that Teksavvy (or an equivalent as described above) is available in an area before moving to it. Full Disclosure, I am a Teksavvy customer but not a Teksavvy employee.
As a Sonic customer, I agree with you: small ISPs can be awesome.
However, over 90% of American homes have at most 2 ISP choices. At most! So we are in a small but happy minority.
I lay most of the blame here on the FCC and the FTC, who have totally failed to regulate in a way that maintains a healthy market.
But I also have some blame left over for all the people who signed up with major ISPs while the small ones went out of business. It has always cost me more money to go with a local ISP rather than whatever the megacorp's latest intro rate would be. Now everybody is shocked that Comcast, Verizon, et al are giving shitty service and being total dicks about it. But it turns out I can't go down to the corner and shout, "WELL DUH! WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?!? TO THEM YOU ARE THE VEAL!" because nobody likes hearing I told you so. That or they don't like crazy people shouting on the corner.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#267Awesome 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…
>why does Verizon have to subsidize their costs of business?
Verizon isn't some kind of customer owned co-op. It is a profitable for-profit business that has (over)sold a service. They need to deliver that service, not complain when people use it.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#268Awesome 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…
Your argument is invalid, because Verizon holds monopoly in many areas for high-speed broadband.
I would entertain your argument only if there was consumer choice. In such case we could perhaps experiment with different business models where content provider subsidizes last mile. Without it, consumers are essentially hostage to a monopoly, which is unacceptable.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#269Awesome 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…
Netflix is half the reason why I'm paying Verizon anything. If Netflix is paying for the network, why should any of my money go to Verizon?
Well, actually, none of my money goes to Verizon. My provider manages to avoid all warnings from Netflix and the graphs from Google show basically 100% of users getting the HD stream. They give me a legitimate 100mbps symmetric (well, almost: http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3546047591) and I'm paying under $40/mo.
If my niche provider can offer that service, Verizon can offer that at scale. The fact that their service is a) worse and b) more expensive means either a) they're less competent in running the business or b) they're overcharging their customers. Either way, I have zero sympathy for them. They're a network provider and people are paying them to connect to the internet. People aren't paying them to connect to the subset of the internet that's willing to pay Verizon. It's already bad enough that TV viewers are seen as the product rather than the customer. Verizon's stance here is, once again, treating their subscribers as a product to be leveraged rather than a customer who's interests matter. That they can do it is due to their mono/duo-poly that keeps customers from having a choice of providers. But that doesn't make it any less offensive.
Basically, it boils down to this: if the service costs you more to provide, then charge more to your customers. You can even have a streaming plan that charges customers who stream more than customers who don't. But treating your subscribers as a resource that can be pimped out to all the services on the internet is offensive.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#270Earlier 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…
It's not credible to suppose that Comcast's network is built around equal exchange of traffic. The broadband connections they provide are wildly asymmetrical, often by an order of magnitude. And then there's this: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/bittor... "[W]hen we ask [ISPs] if we too would qualify for no-fee interconnect if we changed our service to upload as much data as we download—thus fil…
> It's not credible to suppose that Comcast's network is built around equal exchange of traffic. The broadband connections they provide are wildly asymmetrical, often by an order of magnitude.
That's because around the time Comcast was building up their networks customer demand was wildly asymmetrical. People simply download far more than they upload and Comcast wisely dedicated more of it's bandwidth to downloads.