"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."
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 to why the dynamics here are such that we automatically assume Netflix is in the right. Guilt tripping Verizon into adding more routers is a major net positive to Netflix's business.
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. As Wall Street demands growth, it has to come from somewhere, and since Carriers are not able to sell consumers additional services (no matter how hard they try), they need to find another set of wallets (content providers). They're not utilities and have a profit motive, right?
Again, I'm not saying this is correct, simply trying to add another viewpoint to the conversation.
If they choose to reduce that speed for any reason, or throttle any kind of connection they are entitled to do that but they can't complain when someone else says that is what they are doing.
Personally, I think given how much public money has gone into infrastructure and the amount of money I pay in taxes it seems insane for me to first pay for the ISP's infrastructure with taxes then have to pay them again. So while they have a right to throttle, they don't have a right to throttle my connection on infrastructure that they did not pay 100% for. Which probably accounts for the majority of their infrastructure.
Because I, a Verizon customer, have paid to access Netflix.
I pay monthly for bandwidth to use as I see fit. It doesn't matter if all of the customers are using their bandwidth to go to one source. It doesn't matter: it's our bandwidth to use how we see fit.
It is Verizon's responsibility to provide us with the service that we are paying for. They advertise a service, they market this service, and they charge us for the service: but then fail to deliver on their promises because they're charging someone else too?
They sell us capped packages and tell us we have a set amount of data. We cannot exceed the data, because the infrastructure can't take it and we have to pay for our usage. We have to pay for our demand, that's the point of caps. Make the users pay for using.
That to me implies that we are paying for a set amount of data! That we are paying for it, not anyone else.
We pay for the upgrades that are necessary to deliver data to our homes. That is the point of a subscription.
This is like saying: all of the telephone customers are calling Pizza Hut, so Pizza Hut needs to pay the phone company to upgrade the switches at the Phone Company. What???
We've already paid for the infrastructure required to deliver the data we're paying for.
If Comcast wants to offer their customers video over a traditional cable network, they pay content providers.
Why should the Internet be different? Shouldn't ISPs be paying people who provide the content their customers are buying?
How is that viewpoint even remotely considered valid ?
Customers are requesting that data, through a pipe which they have already paid for.
It is unfair for Verizon, or any other ISP, to ask to be paid twice for the same bits. What bits I am asking for, as a customer, shouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Yes it is.
If you solve their problems in the general case, then that solution will also work for the next big user, and for the small users as well. If you special-case handling for them, then it will be harder for the next new entrant (who could even be a Netflix-upending upstart) to become established.
They do use more resources, there is no question about that, but they also have higher costs to their ISPs. This cost could be mitigated by them running their own internal network and peering directly with other backbone providers (they already do this to some extent). But in an architectural sense that option is available to anyone (in practice, of course, nobody is doing BGP for their home network).
If you believe in the original promise of the end to end network (a promise which is currently lying in the street gasping for breath) then you don't want netflix special cased.
It's no surprise that Verizon (with POTS roots) and Comcast (hub and spoke cable provider) don't have end-to-end in their DNA, but rather a tollbooth model of the world. It doesn't mean we have to go along with it.
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.
ISPs typically possess less total bandwidth then they sell. The problem is that the typical users usage is rising faster than the ISPs are willing to handle. If I pay for 50Mb/s, and the other end of my communication has enough bandwidth to provide it, then I should be able to get to that speed.
As far as I am aware, there has been no accusations that Netflix does not have enough bandwidth to supply their customers, but that the intermediaries have oversold their networks to the point where they cannot deliver on their promises.
Ideally, you're right -- if netflix (and internet video in general) drives growth in internet traffic, maybe it isn't fair to require service providers to upgrade their service out of hand.
But then I think that rule primarily applies for a free market. I'd argue that internet providers are not currently participating in a free market and it causes real problems. Without a free market... companies need more supervision.
I'll put it this way: 2 competing providers. Average internet usage keeps rising exponentially. People want faster internet. The providers either lower prices or upgrade infrastructure. Netflix is not forcing them to do anything. But then it's probably reasonable for Netflix to say "Your connection is crappy because of your internet bandwidth, it's not us..." But hey, consumers can choose.
Problem here is... what are their choices? Even just one other company participating in the market that can make a similar offering (eg cable speeds) would change the whole conversation I think. Suddenly they'd be working harder to keep your business (or take you from the competitor) and they'd stop talking about more and more ways of screwing their customer and taking advantage of de facto monopoly status.
The incentives are all messed up and it encourages gouging instead of innovation.
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; from Comcast's or Verizon's perspective, it's just an awful lot of bytes. So if the issue is the amount of traffic, it's just Verizon complaining that we're using too much bandwidth (yes, us; we're the ones watching Netflix). I get that's expensive to deliver all those bytes to my home, but that's what precisely what I'm paying for. That a huge number of those bytes comes from the same originator shouldn't enter into it. It's just a site on the internet.
EDIT: Also, I wanted to add, that all of the traffic comes from the same source actually helps Verizon from a practical standpoint, since it can solve a lot of it with only a small number of interconnects. Compare to a more fragmented market, where Verizon might have to make specific peering provisions for a bunch of different 5%-market-share content providers to fulfill its customer obligations.
> Guilt tripping Verizon into adding more routers is a major net positive to Netflix's business.
All sorts of businesses benefit from the ecosystem of other businesses around them. If I run a store in rural Iowa and Acme Co opens a huge factory there, then I stand to make a bunch of money from all these newly employed customers. Should I subsidize Acme? [1] After all, hiring people is expensive. If I open a hardware store near a bunch of planned construction, should I pay those real estate developers? You can expand this to the whole economy being basically just a set of interdependent positive externalities. Maybe Verizon should pay Netflix for making their service more valuable?
Or we can use the simpler model, in which you get to charge your customers. Verizon charges us for delivering the content we request. Netflix charges us for the content itself. Cogent (or whomever) charges Netflix for its bandwidth. Everything works.
> They're not utilities and have a profit motive, right?
They could charge more, and they could even charge per unit bandwidth (or tiered bandwidth) if they wanted. "My business isn't working that well" is not a good excuse to hold your subscribers hostage. You could equally use "Wall Street demands growth!" to defend Comcast's new practice of robbing banks.
Imagine I bought a popular TV set in 1980 to watch broadcast content, but after I got it home, the TV maker remotely activated a previously undisclosed filter that would only show certain channels. Then they went to ABC, NBC, and FOX and said, "So guys, you want your content seen? My margins on these TVs keep going down, so somebody's gotta pay." Not cool, right?
EDIT: Another point, probably the most important. The "problem" here is ridiculous: it's that demand for Verizon's product (i.e. internet access for end-users) is increasing a lot because it is becoming more useful to its customers. That's what every business wants! "We sell internet access and everyone is now using so much more internet! Whatever shall we do?" The idea that Verizon is up against some sort of profitability wall because of how popular its product is becoming and thus needs to charge the companies responsible for that increased popularity...it's simply not credible. Not sure why I didn't think of this point earlier.
Edit: s/Comcast/Verizon, since that's specifically who we're talking about.
[1] This actually does happen in the form of tax incentives for companies opening factories. It's a bit messed up.
I don't see that argument going very far. Netflix has an ISP and pays for their own bandwidth. Why should they pay twice for their bandwidth?
If verizon has a problem with the amount of data their customers are requesting from netflix they could always disallow that or institute data caps etc.
Personally, I'd really love to see Netflix start using encrypted peer-to-peer to distribute the bandwidth. See if Verizon would be willing to cripple all VPN and HTTPS users to try and shake down Netflix.
Interesting question. I guess from my perspective I buy broadband from AT&T and they tell me under no uncertain terms that I have a cap at x amount of gigabytes. As a customer I expect to use all of that.
>Guilt tripping Verizon into adding more routers is a major net positive to Netflix's business.
As a customer it shocks me they aren't doing so. Yesterday it was Netflix, today its every kid with an Xbox1 or PS4 buying games digitally as buying physical media is out of style. What's a typical game nowadays? 20gb? That's the equivalant of many netflix movies right there, all at once.
What does tomorrow hold? Why aren't they prepared for this?
The ISPs are punishing consumers for their choices - it's just ridiculous.
But to answer your question: I am already paying my ISP to deliver all packets I request to me, up to certain limits that my ISP agreed to when they started my service. If my ISP is failing to live up to that bargain, I'd like to know.
Also, the "poor Verizon, helpless in the hands of Wall Street" thing verges on obscene. That they are in a position to shake down people for more money does not justify them doing so. If they don't want to be in the ISP business, they can get out of it. They are also welcome to find new ways to create value. But running a protection racket is not in any way morally defensible.
If the ISP's customers are making requests to Netflix' servers, then yes.
Content services should not be harmed for being successful. If the bandwidth customers are desiring certain content providers it is the bandwidth providers responsibility to make sure it is available and fast, per their marketing and products.
ISPs have been miss-selling Internet connectivity for many years - "UNLIMITED!!" "FAST!!" "CHEAP!!" - and now they ( and their customers) are reaping that harvest.
Netflix isn't the driver, the Verizon customers who want to use netflix are the driver. They're paying Verizon to get them access to cool stuff like Netflix.
It sounds to me like those customers are not getting the service they expect.
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.
When you install a server in a colo, you don't get free transit. You find a transit provider (like Level3, Cogent, or NTT) and you pay them for bandwidth. You can understand this very intuitively as most hosting services (like AWS) will charge you for bandwidth.
As a service provider (like Weebly), you are paying your own transit provider for a certain amount of bandwidth, and they are covering the costs of delivering that bandwidth to (usually) anybody globally and the costs of maintaining their network.
If a network gets large enough, they may often negotiate peering agreements with other networks. So Level3 and Cogent may have a peering agreement, or Level3 and Comcast may have a peering agreement. These are generally set up when two networks deliver roughly the same amount of traffic to each other, or it's considered beneficial to both parties to get the networks closer, and it simplifies the working relationship.
These peering agreements can often become contentious when they become imbalanced. Very early on, I remember a fight Cogent and France Telecom had over peering -- FT felt like they were getting the raw end of the deal, and de-peered with Cogent. Cogent refused to pay another transit provider for access to FT's network and so traffic from the Cogent network to FT would drop. They resolved about a week later, with lots of unhappy customers caught in the middle.
As you can see, it's simply not the case that (a) service providers never pay for bandwidth because the end-user already pays for bandwidth and (b) peering / free transit is guaranteed.
Maybe I'm not understanding the nuances here, but it seems to me like Netflix is taking an ideological stance to hide behind the fact that they are trying to negotiate a better business agreement for themselves.
Because that's Verizon's business: to provide internet. That's not up to Netflix, who is an internet-based content provider. If Verizon wants to charge the fuck out of their customers to beef up their network so they are the best Netflix streamer out there, then they're free to do that.
People want Netflix because Netflix is doing its job. People can't get Netflix because Verizon's not doing its job. Simple as that.
To put it another way, if Netflix was the bottleneck (and thus, the problem), Verizon would only have to show that their bandwidth from Netflix is bottlenecked by Netflix' lack of serving capacity. Of course they can't show that, because that's not the case, and thus not the problem.
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.
However, I feel that this issue is one of misrepresentation. Netflix wants Verizon to be a common carrier, and have its revenue increase linearly with the amount of data it transfers. In that case, Verizon would happily increase their revenue by providing actually faster Internet, because customers would pay more per day if they downloaded more per day, since they'd then pay a fixed amount per GigaBit.
On the other hand, I don't understand what Verizon wants to be. I feel like the type of company it wants to be is only sustainable in the very short run, highly dependent on other companies such as Netflix, and incapable of good PR because what clients want, and what they subscribe for, is impossible to deliver (the amount of data clients want to transfer is always above whatever they can promise to offer). That market positioning is tolerable for instant Wall Street growth, but it is detrimental to customers, to website owners, to peering partners, and to the long-term future of the company, were a reasonable competitor to enter the market.
I also feel there could be a middle ground, such as Verizon asking customers from every city to tip in for a massive city-wide network upgrade. That would be good for PR and customers would happily donate. It seems fitting, because from what I understand, the real money eater is a one-off upgrade; it doesn't increase maintenance costs much, if at all.
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.
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.)
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) should bear a cost, it should be the requester -- either through a higher fee or a smaller fraction of the pipe.
In practice, that will mean "the more Netflix [or anything] you use, the slower your service". But you shouldn't "short-circuit" the process and just start punishing Netflix's packets directly just for being Netflix. Rather, it should be "this customer endures this cost [broadly defined] for using this much, regardless of what it was for".
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.
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.
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.
Verizon is paying to provide its own customers with what they want (speed that enables access to Netflix and other entertainment), not to subsidize Netflix.
Netflix pays its for its own high-speed internet access already. Verizon offers high-speed access and then doesn't pay for it. Therein lies the conflict.
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.
You buy an Internet connection from an Internet service provider to consume the Internet. Until the word Internet is dropped from “ISP”, that's the service they sell.
They have no more rationale to charge Netflix to “access” Internet service purchasers than they have to charge your grandmother to deliver you her email.
And about that profit motive, cable already raises prices at 4x consumer price inflation:
“Since the FCC began compiling these reports 19 years ago, the cost of basic, expanded basic and the next-most-popular tier of service have risen at average annual clips of 4.3 percent, 6.1 percent and 5.1 percent, respectively. Inflation has grown at an average annual pace of just 2.4 percent over that time period.”
http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/05/19/pay-tv-prices-continue...
They have subscribers because those subscribers want to use stuff like NetFlix.
Take away all the good 'content' and why bother having an ISP? Mobile phone can check emails too.
It's not that Netflix is 35% of global internet traffic. 100% of my ISPs "global bandwidth" should be content of the end users choosing (usually requests). The user is paying for the right to request this content, and have it delivered. Wether its Netflix, gaming, news, poltiics or Zombo.com doesn't enter into it. At 35% though, it might make sense for Netflix to enter the ISP business.
This framing is a tool that ISPs and their supporters use to excuse charging twice for the same service, and more importantly, controlling users access to content through discrimination.
Thanks again for the writing prompt though.
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 were a nontechnical consumer my first response would be, "What the hell are they waiting for? Put in the fast lane! I wanna watch my damn movies!"
Considering that customer satisfaction with the average telecom company is somewhere between that of the DMV and a crooked tax collector, it plays into the confirmation bias people have that they don't love their ISP, they tolerate their stupidity because its the only way to get online.
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 Netflix and they won't pay up."
This situation could get ugly, though.
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?
The average joe isn't outraged enough about net neutrality. If only they'd start doing this to other known bad actors coughcomcastcough, that might just be what the doctor ordered.
I wonder why they ponied up the money to the protection rackets first, and only then started pointing fingers. Maybe the agreement gave them access to some better data? If not, this should have been done months ago!
By the way, don't bother with the comments on the article page unless you want to lose all faith in humanity :(
Verizon: Netflix performance sucks because their traffic is congesting our network!
Netflix: Our performance sucks because their network is congested!
Verizon: OMG WTF you can't say that!
Could also be that the agreement had an anti-defamation clause, and Verizon was counting on that to avoid upgrading their internal network.
If the problem with Comcast is that their network is congested and users can't switch to another provider then it doesn't matter whose fault it is, those people are going to leave regardless.
Note that Netflix is only showing these notices in areas where Verizon has competition to which their customers can switch, which lends a lot of credence to the idea that 'ISP switchability' is a key factor guiding Netflix's behaviour.
> NetFlix will lose huge. Obama is protecting the Taliban now. That's the only reason Silicon Valley soared. Democrats (from Jan 2007) and Obama 'til his Taliban kiss.
One possible reason is that it makes it easy to quantify their economic injury.
Yet when another entity does something as simple as showing an error message that casts them in a negative light, they are willing and able to threaten legal action.
They stretch the truth as far as they can, yet give not an inch when confronted with truths they don't like.
Remove government so we can add customers! But we need government so we can slap Nextflix when they say something we don't like!
I don't have a good answer how to fix it, it's just very plain to see, and frustrating.
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.
Tech: "Could you please unplug your computer for 20 seconds and restart it?"
Me: "Okay. <does nothing for 60 seconds>. Okay, it's back"
Tech: "What browser are you using?"
Me: "<Looks at Ubuntu desktop> Internet Explorer 6".They probably mean the WiFi built into the cable modem.
I just played it dumb and said it was just me. We had about 10+ wireless devices connected.
A few years ago I was setting up a new internet provider for my mother, so I called to get the info to get email: Support: "You're using Outlook, right?" Me: "No, Thunderbird." Support: "We only support Outlook, so I can't help you." Me: "It's email, it won't matter if I use Thunderbird." Support: "Our email does not work with anything other than Outlook." Me: "Okay, I'll get rid of Thunderbird and use Outlook." I entered the information into Thunderbird as he gave it to me and then hung up the phone.
But, of course, it only run on Windows, and I was lying telling that I had Windows, as every ISP would refuse to serve somebody that uses Linux...
I had one of their built in modem/router combos that provides internet and wifi, me and a room mate had a minecraft server set up on a box wired into the router, and we played locally, but for some reason every 20 minutes, our connections to the server, the internet, and eachother would just die.
leaving an active traceroute on a spare computer suggested that the router just stopped routing for a period of 20-30 seconds, every 20-30 minutes.
Angry and annoyed, I called in a tech from Shaw to look at and replace the hardware. Standard operating procedure here: "We will show up some time between 8am-1pm". Of course he showed up at 3pm, with no call that he was going to be late. I had to call them.
Unbelievably, he logged into the router (with no permissions given, so those routers are backdoored... goody) and actually identified that the router WAS resetting every 20 minutes or so. Yes, the problem was identified! The problem was that my internet plan was not sufficient enough to support online games, and that if I didn't get another better one, the problem couldn't be fixed. (For the record, I had a 30 mbps down, 3 mbps up, cable connection.)
Jaw agape, I tried to explain to him that A. The game server he was referring to was literally right next to his feet, and B. that even if it wasn't, game data is minuscule compared to video data, something I am a prolific consumer of with no obvious problem there. All that combined with the subtle hint that the router literally just told him it was resetting, the conclusion clearly was that the router is broken, and my internet is fine.
His response to that was:
...
He didn't want to say anything because I had the audacity to say something that went contrary to the marketing line, and the only option he had was to either say I was wrong, or accept it.
He wouldn't replace the router regardless.
So I told him to take his modem/router, put in my old modem, get it registered, and buzz off (though maybe not so colourfully).
When I talked to a Shaw customer representative about having a Tech show up late, lie to me, and not fix the problem without an upgrade, I got this response:
uh, ok?
Fun part though: that transgression was actually considered a transgression by Shaw's regulatory agency, So I reported it to them after I got piddly squat from customer service.
As much as I'd love to see all of that information come to light in a court battle, somehow, I don't think Verizon would...
.@Verizon if it weren't for that C&D you sent to @netflix I would never have known how shitty you've been to your customers. THANKS!
They've got us right where they want us.
I've seen no change in download/upload performance myself.
So I suspect they prioritize the "business class" customers above the "residential" customers.
[EDIT]: fix a spelling typo.
Mostly just because I 100% hate all the cable companies.
Come to think of it, what really separates cable and telephone companies these days? Most of them sell the same things as the others (TV, internet, phone), and the distinction is largely historical and technology based.
There are several nations around the world where this is the case. It reduces the barriers to entry for ISPs, creating an environment where there are dozens of ISPs to choose from with differing levels of customer service and pricing plans.
The primary problem with Comcast and Verizon is that they can leverage their customer base as a negotiation tactic rather than solely on the state of the network.
[0] I wish I was joking about that.
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 transporting a death threat letter. Make it about money and they'll jump on the common carrier bandwagon before you can blink.
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.
http://recode.net/2014/06/05/verizon-threatens-netflix-with-...
Verizon is a walled city. Verizon entices people to live in it's city and pay its rent because it says you can get deliveries from all over the world in the blink of an eye if you live in our city. It has high speed trains, and wide thoroughfares.
It also has a small gate that can let a few cars in at a time.
Outside the gates is another series of superhighways and supersonic trains that connect the whole world.
Netflix says "We can't deliver our movies because the gate to Verizon is too crowded."
Verizon says "You can't claim that, that's unfair. We offered to let you operate inside our walls if you wanted to pay our rent, but you didn't want to."
The problem is that when Verizon got all of its citizens, it promised that it would give them fast INTERNET access. It didn't promise them that it would give them fast access to things on the Verizon network, or things with special arrangements that bypass the internet and use a special toll entrance to the city.
There's no reason they can't widen the gate. The highways outside are absolutely fast enough to send as much traffic as they need into Verizon. But Verizon doesn't want to widen that gate, because they know if they don't, Netflix will have to pay them in order to deliver to their residents at a reasonable rate.
But they absolutely don't want their residents to think that they aren't getting their advertised fast access to the super-highways outside.
They're also doing this in concert with AWS, right? Another huge player.
It depends on how fancy they get with their detection routines. They can certainly see which networks the traffic is flowing over, but then there are multiple devices (and networks) in play to deliver that traffic to them.
For instance, just a one-way trip showing the devices that could slow down a packet of data can give you an idea of the number of potential bottlenecks:
-> Chromecast CPU
-> Chromecast WiFi chipset
-> User's home network router (usually, but not always, provided by ISP)
-> Cable/DSL/FiOS modem
-> [[ ISP devices they directly control ]]
-> Transit provider's network
-> Netflix's network.
I'm not sure they really need to anyway. The hockey stick graph they have showing throughput before and after payment looks like a classic mafia shakedown.
1) ISP's insisted on selling home bandwidth as functionally unlimited. They did this primarily so they would only have to offer expensive plans. Grandma can't get the 300meg email plan for $8, only the $80 plan. And then everybody tried to use it like it really was unlimited.
2) DRM. Drm makes it so that the net can't cache. 90% of netfilx bandwidth is likely the same 10% of videos. They all have to make the full trip through the wires. A local cache at the ISP to improve efficiency is impossible.
The ISP need to quit whining. They need to quit trying to get laws passed in every state that keep competition out.
Verizon 2014 1st quarter. $30.8 billion revenue $7.2 billion operating income http://www.verizon.com/investor/news_verizon_reports_fifth_c...
no sympathy
1) cable internet service from TWC (fortunately - they have decent service in my area so Netflix won't be displaying the "your provider sucks here is a better one" link for me)
2) 1.5mbits/s DSL from AT&T
Some might argue that satellite and wireless providers like Clear are viable alternatives. They are not as wireless has spotty connectivity and satellite broadband has unacceptable latency.
So, my choices are either broadband through the local cable monopoly or almost-broadband DSL through the telco that refuses to upgrade their infrastructure in the area that I live.
Free market indeed. :-/
I guess you could add mobile providers to the list if you count mobile hotspots as broadband. That would be an additional 1-4 providers in most areas.
2) This makes me want to get a Netflix subscription just to support them, knowing I would never watch a single video from them. I'm signing up right now. Go Netflix!
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/netfli...
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious...
Edit: interesting, this seems to be the only screenshot anyone has?
I can see that ping times increases and it's always reoccurring around 9-10pm Fridays. Around 9:30 buffering speeds up, meaning most of the people giving up and switching to regular TV. One could argue that this is the time that Netflix/Youtube/Hbo/ViaPlay or any other service is used the most, but my suspicion is that capping occurs at those times, to validate the Fastlane/slowlane argument when the it arrives here in Sweden too.
I am currently collecting statistics to validate this. However, its insane that a ISP can cap and provide lesser service's on certain ports and argue that the fault is at the entertainment provider. Its also insane that when going from a "torrent way of life" to becoming a paying stream customer, I cant even watch my favourite show, when i want, on 100/100Mbit line.
ISP's are in the business of providing fast connections and high bandwidth, and that's what I'm paying for, however I want to use it. It shouldn't matter if I'm streaming from YouTube or downloaded illegal porn. Though it seems it looks like they want to sell me bad gasoline that doesn't take me anywhere, and say my engine is at fault.
Is Netflix not paying Verizon for the bandwidth and data transfer?
If Netflix is not paying Verizon then why does my hosting provider charge me for bandwidth and data transfer?
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.
As an ISP, I think if you are offering 100Mbps unlimited in/out, you should Expect full thrust from every connection, or at least be capable of delivering that. I know it's not really realistic, they need to assume that some people, sometimes are disconnected but if I am paying for a connection and a certain level of throughput, I expect to get that.
Just my point of view, correct me if my assumptions are incorrect!
Thanks for replying (Linode is just an example)
Of course there would be a massive revolt of their customers if they did so. Because their customers WANT Netflix. So instead, Verizon will try very hard to make it "sorta" work and blame Netflix while trying to get money from them.
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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/files/2014/06...
Do they think Netflix will comply? "Oh Jeez we hadn't thought this through but now with this letter and all, we understand! We'll just start blaming our own servers instead. Thanks."
Or is it simply a necessary step before they sue? But if they sue, isn't it likely they'll lose? (Sue over what anyway?)
Not that I think Verizon actually has a strong case for defamation. Netflix should have little difficulty arguing that they had good reason to believe that their claims are true. I don't think this is going to end well for Verizon.
Netflix should try to explain that in the error messages too.
(please look up irony on wikipedia before downvote, thanks)
Because the former is wrong and demanding more money from a single company hosted on a service provider you have specific peering agreements with is extortion.
The latter however, well, no one said there were unlimited pipes between every transit provider on the planet and if you're someone large like Netflix, sometimes you need to pay for transit on more than one provider to get the performance you need when your own provider can't or won't do so themselves. It has been like that for decades.
Netflix will find that most other people also do not care to hear their whining. I can understand why Netflix does it though...it's $8 a month. Between production costs, licensing costs, marketing, and profits, all $8 a month leaves room for is crappy movies, poor investment, and a continuous drive to shift costs to ISPs and whine about it.
It's not like Netflix is causing you to magically download more bytes. You chose to do this, and that's fine, because that's what you're paying your ISP for. Comcast, et al want to double-dip on this transaction and you should be extremely not OK with that. Why wouldn't the ISPs do the exact same thing to Amazon that they did to Netflix as soon as they become a big enough target and the legal precedent has been established? This is something that needs to be nipped in the bud, like NOW, before this becomes an established way for ISPs to do business.
Also, it's not like all of your favorite services that will someday be paying Comcast protection money not to throttle them are just going to swallow those costs. Those costs will get passed on to you one way or another. No good can possibly come out of any of this.
