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

301–310 of 361 posts

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#301

Post by pdonis »

sp332 wrote: post #204
josh2600 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cl…

> they're going to have to upgrade just a few spots with really expensive equipment just to deal with Netflix traffic

You're missing a key element of the situation: Comcast made a deal with Netflix precisely to address this problem. Netflix now has direct connections to Comcast's network, so Netflix traffic does not have to go through a third party. In other words, Comcast now directly controls how they connect to Netflix, how many connection points there are, what the average network distance is between the closest Netflix connection point and their customers, etc. So they have a much cheaper way to even out Netflix traffic: open up more connection points.

(Which, btw, AFAIK they already did as part of the deal; they certainly did not come out of the deal having "just a few spots" where they are connected to Netflix. Netflix basically is their own CDN; they have servers with their content on them all over the Internet. So Comcast has all kinds of ways to shorten the average network distance between each of their customers and the closest Netflix endpoint.)

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#302

Post by pdonis »

josh2600 wrote: post #54
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."

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…

> the business reality is that the ARPU per subscriber is decreasing every year at a rate lower than additional subscriber acquisition can sate...Carriers are not able to sell consumers additional services (no matter how hard they try)

In other words, the ISPs are doing a bad job of running their businesses, but rather than do a better job, they want others to pay them more without offering any additional value.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#303

Post by pdonis »

sliverstorm wrote: post #181
icambron wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: rewritten because I misunderstood your point. Funny, I actually just added an edit to my post above that discusses this. Comcast adds interconnect capacity as needed. So in at least one way, it's actually easier this way, right? Just one peer to make sure they have capacity for. But either way, it's Comcast's job to run a network that's optimized for its customers needs, not some abstract concept of fairness. A…

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.

> just a small handful of nodes

But Netflix is not "just a small number of nodes". They're basically their own CDN; they have servers all over the Internet, precisely in order to not have the problem you describe.

What's more, Comcast has a deal with Netflix to directly connect Netflix nodes to Comcast's network; in other words, Comcast directly controls how many paths there are for Netflix content to get into its network. If there aren't enough such paths, they can just open up more.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#304

Post by jsz0 »

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."

> "This is about consumers not getting what they paid for from their broadband provider"

If I pay for a 100Mbit/sec connection from my ISP why doesn't NetFlix send me 100Mbit/sec of data? They choose to limit my speeds (via streaming) and do not offer any options to download or pre-cache video content I plan to watch. Is this a violation of network neutrality? If I ask NetFlix for 4GB of data why are they allowed to limit the speeds?

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#305

Post by jsz0 »

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…

> can you swear that Netflix is doing all that it can to minimize bandwidth?

This is an excellent point. Why doesn't NetFlix at very least offer the ability for their users to queue content for download / local caching? If customers had a slow Internet connection at least they could plan ahead to avoid suffering streaming problems.

Ironically isn't streaming-only perhaps a violation of net neutrality? NetFlix artificially limits the speeds my ISP can deliver by only offering streaming. I have a 100Mbit/sec connection yet NetFlix chooses to limit me to streaming speeds.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#306

Post by dclowd9901 »

nitrogen wrote: post #297
dclowd9901 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

$2/GB That's a ridiculously high price. You'd pay $2 for every hour of streaming-quality HD video watched, quite a bit more for download-quality HD.

I guess I'm probably an outlier. I don't watch a lot of TV. I was thinking in terms of my current bill, which is about $125/mo for internet and cable, and supplanting all my cable viewing with internet streaming. That's about 60 hours of television (I watch maybe 2 hours a night on the regular). So yeah, I guess it's probably a little high.

My main point was that this charging scheme incentivizes companies to provide better service, not set up monopolies or short change you service.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#307

Post by dragonwriter »

jsz0 wrote: post #305
giovannibajo1 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> can you swear that Netflix is doing all that it can to minimize bandwidth? This is an excellent point. Why doesn't NetFlix at very least offer the ability for their users to queue content for download / local caching? If customers had a slow Internet connection at least they could plan ahead to avoid suffering streaming problems. Ironically isn't streaming-only perhaps a violation of net neutrality? NetFlix artific…

> Ironically isn't streaming-only perhaps a violation of net neutrality?

No, not at all.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#308

Post by emgeee »

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…

It isn't Netflix's job to minimize their bandwidth usage for the sake of the ISPs. If I pay for 500GB/month at 20Mb down, that's what I should get. If Netflix does decide to increase the bitrate of their videos, than I'm the one that will have to deal with potential buffering issues and/or going over my cap.

As others have mentioned, the ISPs woefully miscalculated the growth of the internet and consumer bandwidth usage and as is the case with capitalism, those mistakes should cost them.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#309

Post by emgeee »

jsz0 wrote: post #304
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."

> "This is about consumers not getting what they paid for from their broadband provider" If I pay for a 100Mbit/sec connection from my ISP why doesn't NetFlix send me 100Mbit/sec of data? They choose to limit my speeds (via streaming) and do not offer any options to download or pre-cache video content I plan to watch. Is this a violation of network neutrality? If I ask NetFlix for 4GB of data why are they allowed to…

AFAIK no where in your Netflix terms of use is Netflix obligated to give you content at a specific speed or amount. They are obligated to stream you movies, not stream you movies at 100mb/sec. This is in stark contrast to ISPs who advertise 100Mbit/sec down.

Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter

#310

Post by jwdunne »

hueving wrote: post #225
jwdunne wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I dunno if it's the same in the US but apparently it's some typically restricted resource that many providers in the UK are lifting the limits off. No, this isn't too typical. Most people have their own router offering WiFi in front of the cable modem. It wasn't until recently that cable companies started bundling wi-fi and NAT into the modem.

I know it's not typically restricted, I've enjoyed "unlimited wifi" for over a decade! The thing that bothers me is some providers in the UK say they give away unlimited wifi as part of the package.
Post reply on HN