Cable Companies: We're Afraid Netflix Will Demand Payment From ISPs 200
Dega704 (1454673) writes While the network neutrality debate has focused primarily on whether ISPs should be able to charge companies like Netflix for faster access to consumers, cable companies are now arguing that it's really Netflix who holds the market power to charge them. This argument popped up in comments submitted to the FCC by Time Warner Cable and industry groups that represent cable companies. (National Journal writer Brendan Sasso pointed this out.) The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), which represents many companies including Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, Cox, and Charter wrote to the FCC:
"Even if broadband providers had an incentive to degrade their customers' online experience in some circumstances, they have no practical ability to act on such an incentive. Today's Internet ecosystem is dominated by a number of "hyper-giants" with growing power over key aspects of the Internet experience—including Google in search, Netflix and Google (YouTube) in online video, Amazon and eBay in e-commerce, and Facebook in social media. If a broadband provider were to approach one of these hyper-giants and threaten to block or degrade access to its site if it refused to pay a significant fee, such a strategy almost certainly would be self-defeating, in light of the immediately hostile reaction of consumers to such conduct. Indeed, it is more likely that these large edge providers would seek to extract payment from ISPs for delivery of video over last-mile networks." Related: an article at Gizmodo explains that it takes surprisingly little hardware to replicate (at least most of) Netflix's current online catalog in a local data center.
"Even if broadband providers had an incentive to degrade their customers' online experience in some circumstances, they have no practical ability to act on such an incentive. Today's Internet ecosystem is dominated by a number of "hyper-giants" with growing power over key aspects of the Internet experience—including Google in search, Netflix and Google (YouTube) in online video, Amazon and eBay in e-commerce, and Facebook in social media. If a broadband provider were to approach one of these hyper-giants and threaten to block or degrade access to its site if it refused to pay a significant fee, such a strategy almost certainly would be self-defeating, in light of the immediately hostile reaction of consumers to such conduct. Indeed, it is more likely that these large edge providers would seek to extract payment from ISPs for delivery of video over last-mile networks." Related: an article at Gizmodo explains that it takes surprisingly little hardware to replicate (at least most of) Netflix's current online catalog in a local data center.
Millionare panhandlers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Millionare panhandlers (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean complete imaginary bullshit made up by and propagated by greedy
sociopaths eager to rationalize their abandonment of their fellow man?
Yeah, something reminiscent in it.
Re:Millionare panhandlers (Score:5, Informative)
You mean complete imaginary bullshit made up by and propagated by greedy
sociopaths eager to rationalize their abandonment of their fellow man?
Especially these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com] ...and lest you think this is a U.S. only thing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Millionare panhandlers (Score:5, Informative)
"Greedy sociopaths" like EVERY charitable organization on earth, which tells you NOT to EVER give money to panhandlers?
A huge number of those begging for money, are quite comfortable and not hungry homeless people. Direct them to the nearest shelter, instead of giving them a dollar.
Re: (Score:3)
As a teenager in Dublin, I once needed change for a bus, so went into a shop and bought a sandwich. After walking past a beggar with a sign saying "need money for food", I thought "I don't really want this sandwich", so I gave it to him. That was one withering look he gave me.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in San Francisco, beggers will complain if you give them non-vegan food. That's if they don't complain about getting food since a good number of them are looking for drug money.
Re:Millionare panhandlers (Score:4, Interesting)
Having a Starbucks cup doesn't mean that they have piles of money. It means they received > $4 in donations recently and were able to spend it. The money they earn usually quickly goes to drugs, alcohol, theft, or impulse purchases. This is why it's so key to NOT give them money. You or I would be smart enough to put the money in a bank, save, and get back on our feet. They can't (or they would have already done so).
When I walk down the street and run into a homeless person begging, I offer to take them to a nearby fast-food restaurant. About 50% decline, and the other 50% are immensely grateful. That allows you to engage them in conversation, and offer them to take up a rehab program, which can teach them to break their addictions and gain the life skills they need to become part of society again.
[1] young homeless women are four to 31 times as likely to die early as housed young women (O’Connell, 2005)
http://www.nationalhomeless.or... [nationalhomeless.org]
[2] In yet another study, 9% of homeless women reported at least one experience of sexual victimization in the last month
http://www.vawnet.org/applied-... [vawnet.org]
[3] According to Didenko and Pankratz (2007), two-thirds of homeless people report that drugs and/or alcohol were a major reason for their becoming homeless.
http://www.nationalhomeless.or... [nationalhomeless.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see a source for that... That seems very high.
Hmm, depends on what degree of "by choice". I know several who choose to live in a tent, because shelters won't accept their pets, and a few who have a problem with small spaces, crowds, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Directing them to a shelter doesn't mean they have to live there. Instead, it's a central location where they will have resources to find out about government programs and other local charities.
Giving out money to panhandlers is a BAD THING, whether you empathize with them or not. You're enabling drug and alcohol habits for those who already have their needs taken care-of. Centuries of ad-hoc charitable donations never improved the lot of the destitute, while modest social safety net programs ha
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the shelters are downright evil, though, especially the religious ones. A lot of them really push religion hard, and some of them won't help you if you don't spend an hour in church or whatever. Get 'em while they're vulnerable, then do just enough to make sure they receive your message.
Re:Millionare panhandlers (Score:5, Interesting)
Nearly all chronic homeless have dreams of a better life, but almost none of them have goals to achieve their dreams, and are stuck in the homeless life. Is trying to give homeless people the tools they need to achieve their dreams "evil"?
The real tragedies in shelters is the rate of rape and violence, which is especially true in (underfunded) public teen shelters. These shelters house hundreds of mentally ill or drug addicted people, who frequently rape others. Most of the homeless people I've run into (who live in a hard life--hearing gunshots nightly) refuse to go anywhere near the public shelters because of fear of their safety. That's how bad they are--that's where the real evil is.
Sources:
[1] It was concluded that among this sample of Scottish post-secondary students, having a strong religious commitment was associated with less substance use and that heavy drinking and using tobacco was correlated with illicit drug use.
http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/a... [indiana.edu]
[2] The one-third of prison inmates who participate in religious activities exhibit lower rates of recidivismand recidivism is due almost entirely to drug and alcohol abuse.
Teens who do not consider religious beliefs important are almost three times more likely to drink, binge-drink and smoke, almost four times likelier to use marijuana and seven times likelier to use illicit drugs than teens who believe that religion is important.
http://www.casacolumbia.org/ad... [casacolumbia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the shelters are downright evil, though, especially the religious ones. A lot of them really push religion hard, and some of them won't help you if you don't spend an hour in church or whatever. Get 'em while they're vulnerable, then do just enough to make sure they receive your message.
From a cost-benefit point of view, is having your food and housing needs taken care of, in exchange for attending a one hour weekly meeting, really that bad? Many of us here try to go to 40 hours worth of meetings a week to cover our food and housing needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, an hour in church every week sounds so much worse than 40 hours/week in an office, facing some truly crazy belief systems...
I'd be happy to attend Buddhist, Scientologist, or Hindu services, if I needed that much help getting through the day... Just so long as nobody asks me if I believe in their dogma.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yea, right ... because the studies that have shown panhandlers can make well over $100/hour are bunk. 60 minutes had an episode at one point that did a hidden camera investigation that showed a man working a Florida rest area bringing in about $120/hour for 6 hours a day every day he worked, and then he went and got in his very nice luxury automobile and drove home to his house.
Stop being such an ignorant tool.
It begins to make sense (Score:2)
Don't discount the misplaced priorities of the masses.
Prhaps they don't affect change at the ballot box, but the thongs that really matter to them can drive them into a frenzy.
Re: (Score:2)
Market share is as important a part of the algorithym as bandwidth.
Don't discount the misplaced priorities of the masses.
Prhaps they don't affect change at the ballot box, but the thongs that really matter to them can drive them into a frenzy.
Especially if those thongs ride up and chafe.
Re: (Score:2)
Actions speak louder than words (Score:5, Insightful)
Boohoo? (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies that are virtual monopolies (south park pointed this out) exist in local areas. I can drop netflix and get hulu, or whatever, no matter where i am. But if verizon is the only place that has dsl in my town, or a cable co dominates the market in a city and the dsl is a joke by comparison, i'm fucked. period. netlix can ask for money, perhaps. But comcast for example can simply unflap its nipple-cover and rub that shit raw, because there is no actual competition for real reals. any competitor can off
so it's only ok... (Score:5, Interesting)
So it's only ok when you do it, then? What a hypocritical joke. I have a better idea: just focus on providing the most reliable bandwidth on the network for your customers as possible and let them provide the content.
So release your own video on demand... (Score:3, Insightful)
you've had all the advantages to do it for years... any of the major cable companies has a huge advantage if they wanted to release a video on demand service.
but you're so determined to suck off the TV model that you've crippled yourself.
And now you're paying the price.
Re: (Score:3)
BLASPHEMY!!! lol
But if that happened Comcast customers could be watching Time Warner content!!! How would they maintain the iron grip of a monopoly and give the illusion of competition in the marketplace!!! Oh the secret back room agreement we have to keep prices high you say??? Hmmm good point!!!
They had no incentive to bother with the expense of doing any sort of upgrades to anything, now that people are switching to Netflix in record numbers and they are losing some income (They are still profiting from
Re: (Score:2)
I agree and think that cable companies having agreements should be illegal... but if Netflix gets so big that they can afford to lock in all the content like the cable companies are attempting to do that could be bad for us in the long haul. If there isn't good competition from the likes of Hulu or Amazon (I tried them and Amazon at least works...) and Crackle (also works great just with commercials which I can tolerate since it's free.)... I could see a day where Netflix decides to charge a lot more for th
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why content providers and ISPs should be separate. This is only an issue for cable companies because they provide both bandwidth and content, and Netflix threatens their content offerings because it provides a service that people actually *want* at a reasonable price.
Such lies ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation: We'd do this to a small company in a heartbeat, and we're really disappointed we didn't kill net neutrality before there were enough big players to fight us on this. Unfortunately we have to make ourselves out as the victims, again.
These guys will do anything to keep their monopolies, and want to be sure they can do anything they want to milk customers.
As usual, this is lobbyists and lawyers and PR people making their clients out to be the poor downtrodden victim here.
And, of course, the FCC being totally sympathetic to the plight of these poor, downtrodden monopolies, I'll be surprised if they don't give it to them.
Paying for video content? (Score:3)
I guess if Netflix was doing something better than me at a cheaper price I would be worried about my customers demanding it too.
In a sense this is already happening, Netflix is charging me per month and it was so good that I stopped paying for cable. No commercials and for the small amount of time I actually spend watching TV in a given day it is totally worth it. So now Netflix gets my money and the Cable company does not. (Well they still provide network access.)
Using what leverage? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No sympathy at all... (Score:5, Interesting)
Cable companies have been gouging customers for decades (high prices, low speeds, low quotas, even worse in Canada), they're trying to extort streaming services. They're afraid of competition and are doing everything they can to stop them instead of competing.
The problem is ISPs are also TV providers in most cases, something that should never have been allowed. Of course they'll try to protect their TV business. Here in Canada (Montreal), Both Bell and Videotron sell internet and TV services, why do you think they have such ridiculous quotas? 60GB is not that much, especially when watching Netflix.
ISPs should welcome those servers since it will cut down on traffic, not charge Netflix.
This is what childish bullies do when caught. (Score:2)
It makes no sense to people who know the situation, but maybe for a split second they can confuse someone who doesn't know the situation.
You'd be gullible if you believe this (Score:2)
"Fool me once...shame on...shame on you. Fool me, can't get fooled again!"
WTF??? Did I miss something in that argument? (Score:2)
Isn't that what consumers pay Netflix for (and justly so!)? And where the hell would that work? If the ISP didn't pay the bill, then the service would fail and the consumer wouldn't pay their part of the bill either. These guys are fucking insane. A chimp eating carrots out of his own asshole makes more sense.
Reality: cable companies are afraid of Netflix because they fear the day they lose the competition with them.
must they be despicable? (Score:2)
Is it a requirement that cable company employees (probably above the level of grunt) must be utterly despicable {socio|psycho}paths, or is that the industry just doesn't attract anyone the rest of us wouldn't be better off without?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter which giant holds the power (Score:2)
Whether it's the ISPs or the big content providers: The bottom line is that eliminating net neutrality would cement the power structure and disallow smaller competitors to rise. It would essentially undermine the concept of free trade and equal footing for everyone to compete in a free market.
In the end, what would happen without net neutrality is that big content providers would have to pay ISPs. Either in form of protection money ("shame if anything happened to your fast pipe...") or in form of a bribe ("
3 GB per hour (Score:2)
is not Blu-ray quality and thats what we want.
Hmm, an immediate hostile reaction, you say? (Score:2)
"If a broadband provider were to {snip} block or degrade access to its site if it refused to pay a significant fee, such a strategy almost certainly would be self-defeating, in light of the immediately hostile reaction of consumers to such conduct."
You mean the hostile reaction you are getting right now as you do exactly that? Like how every one of your customers that has any other option dumps you in a heartbeat?
Yes, if anyone should be paying anyone, it is Verizon/Comcast that should be paying Netflix, as
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if anyone should be paying anyone, it is Verizon/Comcast that should be paying Netflix, as Netflix is providing the content that Veriz/cast sell to their subscribers.
So then Verizon turns to their customers and says "oh you want the Netflix package? Thats $20 more per month than our basic service"
Werent you guys just arguing that ISP's shouldn't be allowed to do that? But now you are arguing that they should be forced to do it?
Why the fuck would they? (Score:2)
They're a direct-to-customer subscription service.
Demanding payment from the carriers would be cutting off their own balls in search of a hand job!
Cable companies just don't get this "Internet" thing, do they? They can only view things through the myopia of their cable business model?
Revolving doors (Score:3)
Worth it to note that the chairman of the NCTA is the former chairman of the FCC, and the former chairman of the NCTA is the new chairman of the FCC.
Does that seem wholly farked up to anyone else other than me?
Not Surprising at all (Score:2)
"Related: an article at Gizmodo explains that it takes surprisingly little hardware to replicate (at least most of) Netflix's current online catalog in a local data center. "
It's not surprising. It all boils down to the compression algorithm used. By maintaining a library of nearly exclusively B list movies Netflix is able to seed their algorithm with just a few titles like "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Catwoman", and "Gigli". The rest of the movie files contain quite a bit of material that has a high degr
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right in TFS: "Indeed, it is more likely that these large edge providers would seek to extract payment from ISPs for delivery of video over last-mile networks."
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they're looking at how cable companies have to pay content providers to broadcast their content.
Disney, ESPN, CNN, etc all charge the cable company for their content. If the cable company doesn't pay, then their customers don't get the channels.
Will this happen with websites or Netflix? It doesn't seem possible, yet it's hard to know just where all this is going.
Consider facebook. What would happen if suddenly facebook demanded an ISP pay them for access by the ISP's customers? Who would the customers blame? Would they simply give up on facebook or would they hound their ISP to pay up?
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Disney, ESPN, CNN all charge customers directly on the Internet, as does netflix.
If they started charging comcast/timewarner/cox/whoever for Internet services they would be double dipping. This cost would certainly be passed on to users who would be unhappy to be paying twice for the same service.
Facebook charging an ISP would also be passed on to the customers, at which point customers would protest. No one will knowingly part with money for Facebook. They'll stop using it before paying for it (knowingly). They'll pay for it by giving Facebook their data and tons of ads, but parting with cash so you can see someones dog chase its talk or lolcats not so much.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
this kind of thing is why areo got hammered so quickly. they skipped the second dip for the TV stations. Now cable companies (falsely i hope) are saying that netflix may be in a position of getting a cut like a cable station o
Re: (Score:2)
Aereo got hammered because they rebroadcasted content that they did not have the rights to broadcast.
They had the right to "rebroadcast" (really it was redirecting) to me because I gave them permission. Did I have the right? If I did not, the the antenna on my roof is illegal.
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
ESPN is not free to the consumer. My cable bill includes a 4 dollar and change "sports channel" surcharge. I watch about 2 or 3 hours of sports channels per year, maybe. Add this to the fact that Cable TV is already way overpriced for the value provided. Getting the few shows I care about through other means grows more and more appealing all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly do they say to you if your ISP didn't agree to pay that fee? "We tried to bleed your ISP dry and they refused, so if you want to watch this site you have to switch to an ISP in our approved list"?
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that Comcast will soon be the nation's only cable company, why don't they just tell the networks they will no longer pay for their channels once the current contract is up? What are the networks going to do, lose nearly all of their viewers overnight?
Re: (Score:2)
Now that Comcast will soon be the nation's only cable company, why don't they just tell the networks they will no longer pay for their channels once the current contract is up? What are the networks going to do, lose nearly all of their viewers overnight?
And Comcast would lose subscribers by the boatload as well.Cable companies have threatened that over fee disputes and the content providers tell subscribers "the cable company is taking away your sports..." Such battles don't last long as both are hostages of each other. With the OTA HD broadcasts if Comcast dud that you'd see some channels go that route if they could get airwave space; others go to internet delivery and fight with Comcast there. Comcast can't afford for companies to find alternative choice
Re: (Score:2)
Or, as theshowmecanuck figures [slashdot.org], the monopolistic ISPs would use their uncontested power to push customers to their preferred services.
ISP roadblocks are only temporary and actually spur innovation far more than they disrupt it
Right, which is why there are so many competing ISPs in the US.... errr...
Re: (Score:2)
so many competing ISPs in the US.... errr...
There actually are many competing ISPs in almost every market if you include mobile access.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that Comcast will soon be the nation's only cable company, why don't they just tell the networks they will no longer pay for their channels once the current contract is up? What are the networks going to do, lose nearly all of their viewers overnight?
Ahhhhhhhh! The joys of having a monopoly....
We capitalists have been trying to tell you that for a long time. But would you listen? Monopolies are the free market in action.
Re: (Score:3)
There are "natural monopolies" in the real world. An example would be that "last mile" thing - it makes very little sense for seventeen competing companies to all run fibre to every house in a city.
"Natural monopolies" should be the province of government.
Other than the "natural monopolies", pretty much every monopoly exists as a result of government regulation imposing draconian startup penalties on newcomers. Frequently as a result of a business bribing govern
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the ISPs are ACTUALLY afraid of is popular businesses like NetFlix doing what many other content providers have done when presented with higher costs of market participation have done. They simply stop providing content and let their consumers influence the carriers. It's the content providers who provide value to the carriers, not the other way around. And that fact becomes exceedingly clear when content providers push back by pulling out and fans/consumers get upset.
Can you imagine what would happen to even the most powerful ISP if NetFlix refused to send packets to endpoints controlled by such an ISP? Where do you think the consumer outrage would be focused? On NetFlix or the carrier? History suggests the outrage goes to the carrier who threatens and charges the content providers for the priviledge of connecting with consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if I would blame my ISP (Comcast) for that. If I'm paying for Netflix, I would expect that they release their packets to my network. This works the other way as well. If I'm paying Comcast for my Internet service, I would expect them to not filter any packets coming to my network. Once I pay for service, my vendor would be obligated to do everything it can do to make sure I can use the services I'm paying for. So, in this case, I would be calling Netflix and complaining.
Having said that, I
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix limited the highest bandwidth streams to direct peers for a while. Everyone going through transit could not get the highest quality.
Similarly, it would be quite trivial for Netflix to limit non-paying ISPs to lower quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
back in the 1990's ESPN extracted payment from every ISP for users to access the website
this was before watch ESPN and needing a cable subscription. this was at the dawn of the internet for people to access a "free"website.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
To some extent I'm sure it's still happening. As a Comcast subscriber I have access to an online streaming service called "WatchESPN" that lets me watch various ESPN channels on my computers or phones, as long as I'm on my Comcast internet connection. I don't use it, but I guarantee you that part of my monthly fee is paying for it, just like I don't watch any of the ESPN TV channels but I know a big chunk of my monthly cable TV fee goes straight to them. Of course ESPN also offers ESPN3.com which requires an additional monthly subscription on its own.
There used to be a chart with a nice breakdown of how much the average cable subscriber's bill goes to each of the content providers. ESPN was by far the biggest chunk, Disney/ABC took a good portion, etc. I'd love to see a recent breakdown if anyone has one.
Re: (Score:2)
There used to be a chart with a nice breakdown of how much the average cable subscriber's bill goes to each of the content providers. ESPN was by far the biggest chunk, Disney/ABC took a good portion, etc. I'd love to see a recent breakdown if anyone has one.
Odd that these should be separately enumerated as ESPN is a part of Disney as is ABC. It's all one happy money printing family.
Fuck ESPN (Score:3)
ESPN is the most expensive cable channel. It accounts for the largest chunk of your bill. I have never watched ESPN and don't plan to. Why can't they go with a subscription model like HBO?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There used to be a chart with a nice breakdown of how much the average cable subscriber's bill goes to each of the content providers. ESPN was by far the biggest chunk, Disney/ABC took a good portion, etc. I'd love to see a recent breakdown if anyone has one.
Here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It is insane to think we are owned by corporations
We are talking about Netflix/ISP charges for streaming entertainment programming, right? If you can't think of a single alternative, then you are owned.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Comcast, Verizon, AT&T want ESPN they must carry ALL ESPN channels. It's one of the main reasons we can't get A La Carte programming.
The *only* reason we don't have a la carte pricing is that the carriers refuse to provide it. The carrier may be required to "buy" ESPN 2-54 if a subscriber has ESPN 1, but I've never seen where the subscriber must "pay" for ESPN 2-54. They could still be a la carted with the prices proportional to the cost. The carriers suspect it would be a poor model, but nobody actually knows, they just refuse to try.
Re: (Score:2)
The carrier may be required to "buy" ESPN 2-54 if a subscriber has ESPN 1, but I've never seen where the subscriber must "pay" for ESPN 2-54.
WTF? Yeah, I'm gonna eat the cost of purchasing the whole lineup so my customer can get 1 channel! They would be out of business in less than 6 months provided their shareholders didn't sue them for financial suicide.
Disney [wikipedia.org] requires that ESPN be in the base tier of programming and they also own:
A&E
History
H2
Fyi
Military History
Crime & Investigation Network
A+E Networks International
A+E Networks Consumer Products
A+E Studios
A&E IndieFilms
A+E Films
A+E Networks Digital
Lifetime Entertainm
Re: (Score:2)
Got it. You win for the most disagreeable agreement of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they contractually banned from it? I said no. What do you say?
" The carriers suspect it would be a poor model," I said yes. What did you say?
Re: (Score:3)
Where the ISP argument breaks down is that, ESPN forced people who wanted their content to either pay or have a cable subscription. So if I didn't want to pay and didn't have cable, I'd have to find my "ESPN fix" (like I would have one) elsewhere, which most likely I could at something like any other flipping news site. But let's say that I can't do that. Well, then I guess I'll have to invent something to compete with ESPN. The flip side of that equation is if I don't like my cable company, I'm basical
Re: (Score:2)
Name one other content distribution model where the content producers pay the distributors rather than the distributors paying the content producers?
That's why it was always stupide for the ISPs to stop messing with net neutrality. Once the idea someone had to pay came into it, it was inevitable that the ISPs would end up paying Netflix, not Netflix paying the ISPs.
Re:not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
They are dreaming. We are thinking about throttling them here right now. Why should we let all those other sites suffer due to one service using nearly 75% of our bandwidth.
Customers are DEMANDING those bits. If you can't afford to keep those bits flowing, start charging your customers more.
Re: (Score:2)
Other customers are demanding other bits and they don't wan't to pay more to feed others hunger for back to back streams of game of thrones. Its a poorly designed system and its not the isp's at fault its the netflix don't understand how to do things efficiently. And that box that locally caches netflix, it uses almost as much bandwidth as our customers use. Thats straight from netflix. Its crap on top of crap with them.
Re:not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
I must be missing something - you are unable to provide the bandwidth you advertise to your end users and you are complaining that the companies they are requesting data from are at fault? This is the same as saying that the concert at the stadium is at fault for the traffic backups. Wouldn't the fault be more with the road providers? Especially when the concert people are saying "Hmm, we know this is possibly a problem - we can put a live hologram local to your people so they don't have to get on your roads" and instead of saying "yes", you say "no, it's all your fault we can't provide it". Your end-users are your customer - and should you start throttling because you're unwilling (or unable) to provide the bandwidth, they are well within their rights to nail you to the wall for failing to provide SLA data throughput if it is correctable by you.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the fact that revek is part of a microISP which serves a county that has a population of about 20,000, out of a county seat with a population of about 10,000.
Netflix is somehow responsible for his cost issues with buying bandwidth from a real telecommunications company, and his lack of scale sufficient to justify co-locating a content server to serve such a small population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When the first question your users ask stops being "Can I watch Netflix?" then you can charge the ones that do ask it more for the exorbitant service level they are demanding.
Until then, since it IS the first question most of your users are probably asking you need to suck it up and provide the service even if it means charging more. If your ARE the only provider because of the small area you are in then your users will either pay or give up netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get that the meteoric rise in online video streaming by customers puts pressure on ISPs because if affects the oversubsribe ratio that they can use (which is required to turn a profit) while still providing a good user experience.
But what I don't get is why you can possibly blame Netflix. Your customer requested 100GB from Netflix last month. Netflix supplied it based on your customer's request. If you think 100GB (or however much) data in one month is too much then throttle your customer, but do it fa
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing I blame Netflix for is misconstruing this fight for free peering on their terms as Network Neutrality.
Real Net Neutrality is a serious issue. Preventing eyeball networks from shaping their traffic to fit their aggregate needs lest they infringe on some fictional right of a content provider? Simply ridiculous.
BTW, yes, the
Re:not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Other customers are demanding other bits and they don't wan't to pay more to feed others hunger for back to back streams of game of thrones.
Thats your problem. You over sold service and can't provide what you sold.
Its a poorly designed system and its not the isp's at fault its the netflix don't understand how to do things efficiently.
Actually they do, which is why they'll colo a rack for you for free, or peer with you at any major pop, for free.
The poor design is yours. You're just a shitty ISP.
it uses almost as much bandwidth as our customers use. Thats straight from netflix. Its crap on top of crap with them.
Bullshit. Its a local cache, exactly what you were demanding they do originally. You're clueless.
Re: (Score:2)
They are dreaming. We are thinking about throttling them here right now. Why should we let all those other sites suffer due to one service using nearly 75% of our bandwidth. Let them fix their busted streaming model to include some caching ability.
Surely you're not talking about Netflix? If you're an ISP, Netflix will peer with you for free at 8 major POPs. They will even give you caching servers [netflix.com] to put at your border. If one service is consuming 75% of your transit, someone probably does have a busted model but it isn't Netflix.
Re: (Score:3)
They colocate content servers [blogspot.com] with telecommunications providers. Just not with podunk microISPs who boast that they host seven whole websites [cguyz.com].
Throttle Netflix and you can kiss your residential customers (if you have any substantial number) goodbye. You don't ha
Re: (Score:2)
And that is why they're offering those servers *for free*, to cut down traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
They are dreaming. We are thinking about throttling them here right now.
So why don't you tell us who you work for so we know who to start filing lawsuits against for abusing their monopoly?
You want to charge your customers for Internet access, and then not actually provide it. Thats what you're saying. Your customers paid for that bandwidth when they paid you. What you're saying is why you shouldn't be allowed to do business. Either provide the service you sold or get out of business.
I mean really how hard would it be to include some kind of encrypted cache that would store media for a time.
You don't actually work for an ISP, do you? This exactly what content delivery networks li
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Akamai does charge some ISPs for its service. At least according to someone who actually went over the financial reports, Akamai doesn't get actual money from this, but rather a reduction in the cost to co-locate the servers.
Still, this is not the same thing as TFA. The thing that Akamai charges ISPs for is the peering traffic saved, not access to the content. If an ISP says "no", then no local Akamai cache, and the service is as good as the ISP's bandwidth to other providers that do have an Aka
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Akamai does charge some ISPs for its service. At least according to someone who actually went over the financial reports, Akamai doesn't get actual money from this, but rather a reduction in the cost to co-locate the servers.
What you're saying, as I understand it, is that Akamai is paying ISPs to house its CDN servers and gets a discount in some places. This makes sense due to the business model in place, but I don't think you can say that Akamai charges ISP because they get a discount.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is what I'm saying. However, I don't think even if the balance turned out to be positive on Akamai's side, even that would count as "asking ISP to pay for access".
Imagine a small ISP. Not a lot of hosted content. In order to boost local content, this ISP provides co-location services at lower than usual costs. Due to the same considerations, the ISP pays a lot of peering costs (mostly incoming traffic, not a lot of outgoing traffic).
And then this ISP has an idea: I'll contact Akamai. The Akamai netw
Re: (Score:2)
"Whom". It is ". . . who is it that is actually paying whom?"
Correct - in formal usage. But 'whom' is in decline, and for many writers is mandatory only when governed by a preposition.
Re: (Score:2)
You are misunderstanding the substitution rule. 'Who' for subject/'whom' for object.
So your statement should read,
"who gives a fuckm?"
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix is perhaps the most ruthless corporation to have ever existed. They will stop at absolutely nothing to dominate the economy. In a year or two stopping them will be impossible. We must act now, otherwise it will be too late.
Why? Does their player mine Bitcoins for the Winklevii in the background while playing movies?