Text of the letter in question: http://www.scribd.com/doc/228334970/Letter-to-David-Hyman
Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
341–350 of 361 posts
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#342Awesome 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…
>That is to say, if Netflix is really the sole driver of Network upgrades, why does Verizon have to subsidize their costs of business?
Because Netflix has a higher brand affinity and customers of Verizon will be outraged due to what they perceive is shitty customer service buy a quasi monopoly.
The consequences is damage to Verizon's business because customers would switch if they could, but they can't.
Verizon doesn't HAVE to subsidize Netflix's business but they should if they don't want a legion of pissed off Netflix customers who feel trapped by their ISP.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#343Awesome 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…
[deleted]
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
$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 pay $25/14 GB pretty consistently here in Singapore. Ironically, in Singapore, it's cheaper for me to pay for traffic on a pre paid SIM, than it is to pay for it with a pre-paid account. Works out great when we're downloading 50-60 GBytes/month. $100/month gets us 56 gigabytes @ about 20-30 mbits/second.
Is wired bandwidth that expensive in Singapore?
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#345Earlier 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…
>That is to say, if Netflix is really the sole driver of Network upgrades, why does Verizon have to subsidize their costs of business? Because Netflix has a higher brand affinity and customers of Verizon will be outraged due to what they perceive is shitty customer service buy a quasi monopoly. The consequences is damage to Verizon's business because customers would switch if they could, but they can't. Verizon doesn…
"if they don't want a legion of pissed off Netflix customers who feel trapped by their ISP"
This is supremely dangerous to Verizon.
Taking the US political area I know best, gun owning households are a majority in the US, but of course those who vote, vote first and foremost on this issue, let alone be politically active are the usual successively smaller fractions of that huge number.
And starting in the mid-80s we've been able to move mountains (details on request). The last thing the big incumbent landline last mile providers want is a large percentage of the population getting pissed off and doing the above, voting when they might not otherwise bother, especially in state and local elections, voting on this issue, and becoming politically active on it.
I think the incumbents' behavior is so outrageous that this is eventually inevitable, Netflix's PR attack, in part enabled by their being so big, has the potential to substantially move that day of reckoning forward, and is therefore probably the biggest thing to happen in the net neutrality fight since AT&T's Edward Whitacre opened his foolish mouth and really got the issue started 8 years ago.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#346Awesome 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…
> Yes, ISP customers are paying for access but the business reality is that the ARPU per subscriber is decreasing every year at a rate lower than additional subscriber acquisition can sate.
ARPU is going up while Verizon's bandwidth costs are going down (peer with Netflix/Google/YouTube/Facebook and a huge chunk of your traffic is taken care of).
http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2013/0...
"FiOS revenues grew 14.7 percent, to $2.7 billion in second-quarter 2013, compared with $2.4 billion in second-quarter 2012."
vs.
"Verizon added 161,000 net new FiOS Internet connections and 140,000 net new FiOS Video connections in second-quarter 2013. Verizon had a total of 5.8 million FiOS Internet and 5.0 million FiOS Video connections at the end of the quarter, representing year-over-year increases of 12.2 percent and 12.6 percent, respectively."
(Revenue growing faster than new customer growth and a very high ARPU.)
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a fun time with a Comcast installation tech a year or two ago: Tech: "Looks like we're about done. Now I just need to use your computer to activate the connection." Me: "I don't have a computer, I only use my internet for tablets and my roku" Tech: "I need to use your computer to activate your connection..." Me: "I don't have a computer, and of course you do not." Tech: "Okay, just a second, I have to make a ca…
Wait, Comcast tries to install software on your own computer without asking?
I mean, technically they are asking, except they phrase it in a way that tricks people into believing that it is required.
I feel comfortable lying to their techs about a computer that is in plain sight because they feel comfortable lying to my face that they must use my computer to complete the installation.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#348Awesome 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…
If it not Verizon's responsibility to provide a internet connection, to the internet, then what exactly are their internet service customers paying for.
Also, I find it interesting that netflix charges ~10-15 bucks a month, while the average internet only service plan in the 40-50$ range per month. This is a guess, but I would also say there are more Comcast/Verizon/Time Warner customers than netflix customers. The amount of money these large service providers rake in must be an order of magnitude higher than Netflix.
To me, this money that the big ISP's are trying to get from Netflix looks like some sort of fee applied for forcing them to actually provide the service they promise to their customers.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sorry this perfectly valid and relevant quote is being down voted. Disagreeing with the hive mind on HN has consequences now days unfortunately.
It's not valid, as has been discussed about a dozen times in the thread. Peering arrangements to consumer ISPs are not symmetrical, and never have been.
Re: Netflix replies to Verizon cease and desist letter
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one who thinks that this could hugely backfire from a PR perspective? The message is "The Verizon Network is Crowded Right Now." not "Verizon is Deliberately Slowing This Right Now." (or some less loaded version of that) It's bad PR for the ISPs, but combined with the fact that most people can hardly spell ISP, and that Comcast and their FCC homies keep describing the new toll booth as a fast lane, if I…
> "What the hell are they waiting for? Put in the fast lane! I wanna watch my damn movies!" Telling a customer they're not getting what they paid for from their service provider is about as plain English as you can get. I daresay we need this sort of rhetoric, and I doubt their response will be levied toward Netflix unless they start getting letters from their ISPs saying "We're throttling you because you're watching…
I hope it does get ugly, because that's the only way this 'fast lane' horseshit is going to stop.