Slashdot Mirror
Netflix CEO Accuses Comcast of Not Practicing Net Neutrality
braindrainbahrain writes "Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, has a Facebook page in which he posts a short gripe about Comcast. It seems watching video through the Xfinity app on an Xbox does not counting towards your cap on your Comcast data plan. All other services, Netflix included, do. To quote Hastings: 'For example, if I watch last night's SNL episode on my Xbox through the Hulu app, it eats up about one gigabyte of my cap, but if I watch that same episode through the Xfinity Xbox app, it doesn't use up my cap at all. The same device, the same IP address, the same wifi, the same internet connection, but totally different cap treatment. In what way is this neutral?'"
The difference, of course, is that you need a Comcast cable TV subscription in order to have the Xfinity app not count toward your monthly data usage allowance. Then again, you can't exactly sign up for a similar plan through Netflix or Hulu.
Why isn't netflix working????? I can say why .......
(we have comcast too)
And not lodge a complaint with the FCC or his local congresscritter (maybe over an expensive dinner)?
Data from Comcast to customer is half the bandwidth compared to data from Netflix to Comcast to customer.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
"The difference, of course, is that you need a Comcast cable TV subscription in order to have the Xfinity app not count toward your monthly data usage allowance. Then again, you can't exactly sign up for a similar plan through Netflix or Hulu."
And that sentence was obviously written by someone who doesn't understand the concept of Net Neutrality: the whole idea is that content from a provider owned by the NSP cannot be privileged.
That is, eager to complain about - and pay to eliminate - regulations and laws meant to protect the consumer as a danger to "the free market" and "competition" while being equally eager to eliminate "the free market" and "competition".
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Not entirely true. The bulk of the costs are the last mile (which remains the same whether it's Comcast or Netflix doing the streaming). Internet transit costs almost nothing these days, especially at the commit levels that a large carrier like Comcast has...
Trying to get what he wants through shaming Comcast, as apposed to the lengthy regulatory path. We shall see if this works. If Comcast is smart, and they are, they would let Netflix have its way on this. On the other-hand, If Comcast is tough, and they VERY much are, they will put Netflix into a long death struggle over this.
While I'm not a fan of this Comcast policy, there is at least some rationale behind it. Their video service is streamed over an internal network, and does not constitute load at peering points.
Their practice isn't neutral, but any network engineer can appreciate how locally cached content lowers overall load at the peering points.
While net neutrality is an overall good policy, in the grand scheme of things, we can't overlook situations like this where pure neutrality results in a less efficient network.
Some might say we simply need more capacity, and while that is true, it costs less for major ISPs to cache heavily loaded video content locally.
Perhaps there is a middle-ground solution, such as an incentive scheme for huge users like Netflix to cooperate in setting up local caches of the most popular titles with major ISPs. Netflix, the ISP, and the user all stand to gain through such an implementation.
Maybe Comcast created some kind of psychic link for Xfinity so it doesn't have to go over the tubes connected to your house? Thus why it doesn't count towards your bandwidth!
My theory is that it's probably such a huge bandwidth hog that they don't want anyone to realize that it would kill their cap in 10 minutes.
Seems the relevant point is that your cable TV wouldn't normally be part of your data plan, even though it's all delivered digitally now anyways.
But I'd say they're obviously working this angle to ease us into accepting their view of how isp's networks should work... Netflix pays Comcast extra, behind the scenes, for the luxury of being able to deliver video to their customers.
That way your Netflix will cost you twice what it does or you'll be more likely to use comcast's video services... a win-win for them, and all-around bad for Netflix and the customers.
It violates antitrust laws. Netflix, Amazon, and other streaming video services should just sue Comcast and get it over with it.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
The bandwidth used to get the data from comcasts servers is only transmitted across comcasts network and doesn't consume upstream bandwidth from peering connections so I would argue that the xfinity data isn't really "internet" traffic at all. It's like arguing that one apartment watching a tv show stored on a server in an apartment complex should be counted as consumed internet bandwidth to the upstream connections.
In my area, Comcast uses DNS Hijacking to favor their "search engine" any time you misspell something in the url bar. Sounds like more of the same to me. 21st century highwaymen.
From strictly a technology perspective, there is a difference - IPTV delivered via Multicast can be engineered to reduce bandwidth consumption, and will not be counted as usage by your ISP. If delivered via Unicast, such as Netflix or Youtube, it looks just like every other packet. That is, unless you want your ISP performing DPI to bill you properly based on what you're watching instead of where it's coming from...? Which is more "neutral" - DPI or discrimination by packet type?
It's been said here before, these people are for the free market until they're not. When the free market turns against them they don't "innovate," they instantly go whining to their favorite congress person with a moneybag in their hand.
It's the same for everyone that claims to be "free market." There isn't one truly free market person in Congress on in Corporate America. Whenever you hear that it should cause your B.S. detector to go off.
Nonsense. Number one, it's not half the bandwidth, unless you somehow count magical pixie dust compression on Comcast's side. You could be arguing that it travels less far, because the data already resides on Comcast's network (Hulu being sponsored/owned/controlled in part by Comcast), but that has nothing to do with bandwidth, and all to do with.... wait for it... Net Neutrality. In one case, the same packets (assuming the very same file exists on both Netflix and on Hulu), are traveling through the Comcast network, with an endpoint in a Comcast controlled network. In the other case, it is traveling through the Comcast network with an endpoint outside of the Comcast controlled network.
This is EXACTLY what Net Neutrality is about it.
And this is EXACTLY what everybody has been screaming bloody murder about since the ISPs got in bed with content, and since ISPs became big enough to be monopoly/duopoly providers. This exact beehavior was predicted by a number of people, and it will end in
* Internet access that works exactly like cable channel access
* a death sentence for any site that isn't paying off the ISPs to be on a special access program
Welcome to the future Internet. It's called TV.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I made a comment some months about how this will happen, as the reason why isp's are rolling out bandwidth limits and creating artificial scarcity. most(all) of the isp's doing this have such services of their own and this is an easy way to create incentive to use those services and not competing services. for the consumer it sucks bigtime of course - and the big isp's doing this have no incentive to upgrade their services to higher bandwidths since it works as a method to drive users towards their own services, which even if they don't make money(for the isp) surely count against somebodys bonus matrix plans(which are bullshit of course too).
this is the reason why they don't want net neutrality, why they don't want uncapped connections. they just want to promote their walled garden bullshit services. content providers don't mind as it let's them "monetize" the shows in the old fashion - meaning lots of regional licensing and their staff sitting at bullshit lunches getting hammered while selling something the consumer should be able to buy/view globally directly.
they should at least be forced to advertise the fact and be forced to advertise their internet connections as comcast-network connections.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I believe the idea behind it has nothing to do with the delivery mechanisms beyond the fact that both go over the Internet connection. However, Xfinity traffic is given priority at the expense of potentially competing services. If you have 2GB/month cap and Xfinity doesn't count towards it, then Xfinity practically has a monopoly for the rest of the month once that 2GB is used up.
Comcast's defense is that the app turns the Xbox, etc into another cable box (since it's only available with their cable plan), so it shouldn't count towards your data usage anyway.
The NET in Net Neutrality implies Internet. When comcast is delivering you a Netflix/Hulu/Vudu etc. stream, they're pulling it from the open Internet to deliver it to you. When you're using their app, the can deliver the same content completely over their own network. You're not using the Internet, you're using Comcast's WAN, so no Internet bandwidth is being used, so it shouldn't be charged. If I'm streaming a movie from my PC to my TV, it doesn't go against my cap either, because it's using my isolated network, not the Internet.
Ok, I'll bite - I don't get one thing... I pay Comcast an obscene amount of money every month for Cable TV and Internet... why should they give a flying crap if I stream a show or not then? After all, I'm already paying for their Xfinity streamy stuff even if I don't take advantage of it.
I never even come close to my cap every month, but I'm still bothered by how a cap == "unlimited" and I don't understand why Comcast would care since they got the money anyway.
Oh, right - Capitolism now requires that every cporprate entity take the greediest possible short term position on any issue.
Grumble...
The Digital Sorceress
Just because Hastings watched the same episode, doesn't mean he watched it from the same source. If Comcast's Xfinity App is pulling from Hulu, then this would be a valid comparison. Basically, it comes down to one question: is bandwidth usage measured on the customer's side of the pipe, or on the side on which the data is entering the network?
So, it sounds like you're saying that if I torrent something only to Comcast users, it will not count towards my cap? Sweet.
It seems watching video through the Xfinity app on an Xbox does not counting towards your cap on your Comcast data plan.
"All your cap are belong to us"?
Everybody click on all the ads so that Slashdot can afford a proofreader.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
"why should two different apps that probably have two totally different delivery mechanisms"
Actually having used Comcasts service, it streams the Hulu feeds through their own Xfinity web app. So essentially the Xfinity web app is a wrapper for Hulu for paid cable customers. In fact if its a show that appears on both, the Hulu feed is likely to be faster as its not going through 2 different gateways to get to you. I have tested this myself with numerous network shows. I only realized this after a redirect was screwed up and it showed the stream was coming from Hulu, NOT Xfinity.
"Apples to oranges."
Nope the last mile is the last mile no matter what. 0s and 1s don't change just because you use a different service. Maybe get a better understanding of streaming media and understand that the ONLY reason they are doing this has nothing to do with the costs associated, but everything to do with making people THINK there are different costs associated when in reality there are not.
Its lying to the government/customers enough to completely obliterate the fact that they are in reality a utility and should be regulated and beaten into submission as such. Hell Comcasts whole plan to produce "original content is all a elaborate scheme to convince people they are more than what they are, a utility. But making a company not screw customers and not scheme and violate basic civil and federal laws "would be communist."
Our forfathers are rolling in their graves at just how much the rich control this country now.
Besides, the majority of bandwidth cost to the home is the last mile. The long haul is cheap. In this respect, the difference in cost between streaming from the nearest comcast datacenter vs. the nearest netflix datacenter should be close to the same.
This statement makes no sense. The "high bandwidth service" in question in Netflix, Comcast has no say in where this service is located. Unless you mean the high bandwidth service is Xfinity, in which case it is already located within the Comcast network. The fact is, Comcast, and all other ISPs, are being forced to pay significantly more in peering costs due to the massive amount of bandwidth being used by Netflix. Services like Xfinity never leave the Comcast network, so they have no impact on peering agreements.
Now, I fully support Net Neutrality, but situations like this highlight how difficult it is in practice. If Xfinity were to count against usage caps, yes it would be more "fair" in theory. But the fact is, those bandwidth caps are a reflection of the costs of peering agreements, and Netflix raises those costs significantly while Xfinity does not raise them at all, so treating them the same would mean that Xfinity would be indirectly subsidizing Netflix, its direct competitor. The fact is, Hastings doesn't really want Xfinity to count against the cap, he wants Netflix to not count against the cap, a position that is pretty difficult to justify.
Data from Comcast to customer is half the bandwidth compared to data from Netflix to Comcast to customer.
Comcast is both a provider of internet services and a provider of content. What it is doing is bundling its services together to gain an unfair market advantage. It's the same kind of monopolistic practice that Microsoft got sued by, er... every country it does business within. The legal precident here is obvious, as is the conclusion. Whether you call it net neutrality or not, Comcast is doing something unethical and probably illegal as well.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Except this has nothing to do with the network engineering, it's simply about whether or not the particular streaming video service counts towards a user's cap.
If Comcast chooses to cap, then neutrality would mean that their own XFinity content counts toward that cap, regardless of the actual load placed on the network.
But isn't the data cap calculated at the point where data flows specifically to a single customer? More or less as an AC asked, if there was a torrent running that only Comcast subscribers could access, would that count towards their data cap?
I think if data within the Comcast network is counted towards a subscriber's data cap then the Xfinity data should as well, otherwise they are indeed breaking neutrality and exercising as a monopoly.
The data side of Comcast should be entirely separate from the content side.
What is missing from this rant is the source of the video. Content closer to your customer is easier, typically, to deliver and therefore cheaper. And then we have peering agreements and a load of other stuff on top of it.
Maybe comcast and content providers should work on a way of providing a mirror on comcast's network for their customers, thus avoiding the cap issues.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
"When the free market turns against them"
Actually, that's never happened. There's never been a free global communications market.
Infrastructure, and those running it, are regulated and taxed/subsidized at different levels at different times, markets, and media.
That's pretty much the same for everybody that mentions free market, not just Congress people and corporations. Even the people on internet forums. They're all for free market--until they're not.
No kidding. I'm non-existent compared to Comcast and I pay next to nothing for bandwidth these days. My best deal is at a $1/meg for transit on a 100meg commit for a back up connection and my highest is $15/meg for one of my main lines. Saying that bandwidth is expensive is laughable in this day and age.
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
That's why I've been saying for years. Network providers should be just that provide internet access. If they expand into media like you see so often these days there needs to be some regulation.
Seems there's a potentially HUGE market for wireless/wifi internet providers that can offer unlimited data transfers to customers. They wouldn't have their hands tied like some of the loca IPS's here where they have to lease the lines from the major providers which get money from everyone regardless if they are from a small local ISP.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Use Comcast's $60/month service or use Netflix, break your cap, and get service terminated. It's anti-competitive, and Comcast doesn't offer Netflix the ability to host on their network for the same savings. I fail to see any savings being passed onto the customers, rather just a blatant money grab.
why should two different apps that probably have two totally different delivery mechanisms
What, one greases their bytes so they slide over the network easier?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Way back when I had ADSL in australia as my internet traffic within the ISPs network didn't count to my quota. The ISP had a bunch of ftp mirrors, a bunch of game servers, and the subscribers ran a bunch of not legitimate at all P2P servers/clients that restricted to within the ISP IPs.
It had nothing to do with the ISP trying to leverage itself into having an edge over content providing competitors. That external traffic was a big part of their costs and so encouraging their users to use their mirrors and so on was good for them.
When I was at uni, AARNet traffic was cheaper than other national traffic which was cheaper than international traffic - in terms of what the university charged the department for their usage. I can't find any docs now of course, but a different university still has a slightly simpler but similar setup: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/its/quotas/internet/definition.html
Again that wasn't the university trying to get content providers to pay them or trying to give an edge to themselves. It was just a reflection of the costs.
Now the US has far lower costs to start with and maybe they are low enough that it really doesn't matter and comcast are just trying to benefit their other business arms. But without knowing some of the vague details I don't think you can just ignore the non-jerk potential reasons.
So how can competitors get in on this "in-network doesn't count towards bandwidth cap" thing? They can't? So since I have no other choices on my ISP, why then would anyone but Comcast want something like this to be legal? Tweak bandwidth cap to 50GB/month and then laugh as people are required to use your services else have internet services terminated. It would appear this is incredibly simple to abuse to force out any competition.
Nonsense. Number one, it's not half the bandwidth, unless you somehow count magical pixie dust compression on Comcast's side.
Nope. I've seen the magical compression on Comcast's side and it doesn't come as dust. It usually arrives in big, slow-moving blocks.
"if you can" -- precisely why Comcast should be shut down.
If comcast just said that "CAP" was the amount of bandwidth that was used by a customer which left Comcast's network. Such that all traffic that stayed within Comcast's network did not count toward the customer's bandwidth limit.
Nobody said they had to measure it at the modem? Also, I don't believe how much traffic you use is part of this neutrality debate, I though it was around the speed at which it was used. So the same 1GB netflix movie is streamed at the same speed to the consumer as a 1GB xfinity movie.
I'm sorry, I think I'm missing something. Is that a buck per megabyte or a buck per (megabyte-per-second) or what? Because a buck per megabyte doesn't sound very laughable.
The difference is that the Xfinity app doesn't have to leave the Comcast network to get its' content. Netflix, etc, do.
Just think of them metering your bandwidth as it leave the Comcast network instead of when it leaves your house. As a network operator, I don't really see this as being evil. ISPs have to pay for bandwidth that leaves their network, while content inside their network is free. Naturally ISPs want their subscribers to pay for content they access outside the ISP's network since the ISP itself incurs costs for that.
With that having been said, I'm sure Comcast is large enough that it is probably peering with just about everyone, so they don't actually have to pay for that bandwidth, but still, the peering points are usually the choke points in a network, so it makes sense for them to institute caps that would be metered at those points versus at your modem.
Nope the last mile is the last mile no matter what. 0s and 1s don't change just because you use a different service. Maybe get a better understanding of streaming media and understand that the ONLY reason they are doing this has nothing to do with the costs associated, but everything to do with making people THINK there are different costs associated when in reality there are not.
People seem to like the idea that "bandwidth is next to free" and the cost is only in the last mile, and for all intents and purposes it has gotten very cheap compared to years gone by but if it were free (or somewhere approaching free) then explain to me how CDNs are a multi-billion dollar a year business, please. Surely it can't be that network operators at the national level are interested in optimizing traffic (in the name of reducing costs) by moving the content closer to the consumer, can it? But but but bandwidth is free! If Akamai were going to earn $1 billion a year from moving data around surely they are doing it by hand-delivering DVDs to consumers thus reducing the last-mile cost! Oh, wait, that's a different company.
ahh, but your not accounting for the cost of all the systems and equipment needed to monitor and track your quota usage! :)
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Not to mention these same entities sing the exact opposite tune when they need protection from piracy and duplication of content by the dangerous consumers. They LOVE regulations and laws then.
This space intentionally left blank.
"Their video service is streamed over an internal network, and does not constitute load at peering points."
Level3, Comcast's backbone connection, offered to upgrade Comcast for *free*. L3 offered to give Comcast an extra 270gbits of bandwidth, which is effectively giving Comcast a 270gbit faster internet connection.
Comcast turned it down as soon as they caught wind Netflix was behind it.
Example. Say I host a web-page for my hobby on my 20mbit residential connection. But that web service is so popular, my ISP comes to me and says "We'll want to pay for your upgrade to 1gbit internet, just keep doing what you're doing", then I find out it's because some other people are linking to my content. So I get mad that other companies are linking to my services, so I turn down the free 1gbit upgrade.
That is essentially what Comcast did.
All these posts about the cost to Comcast (Netflix is outside Comcast's network while Comcast's content is within the network) are missing the point.
If Comcast allowed Netflix to host their servers within Comcast's infrastructure for a reasonable fee, then Netflix would have an option of how to host the content. Pay a little more, and Comcast customers do not have to deal with the cap. But Comcast does not allow that. And that is the real issue.
Netflix would love this, because not only would they have a better product for Comcast customers, they would also save on fees for sending their content to Comcast's network. Comcast would of course hate it because they would have to compete with Netflix on a more even playing field.
This seems like something that FCC should take a look at - either apply caps evenly to all content (even within network/infrastructure) or allow competitors to host their content within your network/infrastructure. This sort of a rule should be one of the basic principles of net neutrality.
Michal
When they transitioned to DNSSEC validating resolvers for all customers, they dropped the "Domain Helper" service as they viewed it as fundamentally incompatible with DNSSEC validation.
If you are still seeing such behaviors, check which DNS resolver you are actually using, its likely to be OpenDNS or another third party service.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Shill alert. This 99% number is blasted all over Comcast's Xfinity website without substantiation. There is no source nor evidence to back up this claim.
Watching the entirety of SG:A in one month in HD over Netflix will achieve ~150GB of usage. That's 100 episodes / 30 days = ~3 episodes a day (2 hours). That's literally the most casual consumption I can imagine. Now throw in someone playing a video game at a moderate amount (2-3 hours a day) and listening to music while doing work. Maybe a few downloads here and there, or heaven forbid more Netflix streaming. So hard to go over guys, so hard. Must be running video 18/7 and a massive LAN of people playing WoW and video-over-IP chatting with people to even get close! FYI: 5 hours of HD netflix a day = roughly 11GB/day = 330GB/month.
I've used well over 400GB a month. Adjusting Netflix to use SD *ONLY* and I'm already at 200GB for this month. I'm NOT hosting any servers. I'm NOT hosting a LAN of people playing high-bandwidth games. I'm just ONE GUY who watches YouTube videos, Netflix, and plays a few video games. Don't listen to these obvious shills about how the 250GB cap covers 99% of all customers. Substantial claims require substantial proof, and when almost everyone I know is easily flirting with the 250GB cap while trying to conserve bandwidth, I'd say it's bullshit.
I should point out that my VPS has 2.5TB of bandwidth available per month. Yet it costs me less than 1/5th of my internet bill from Comcast. Makes sense, right?
Youtube videos are just crap - gotta load them hit play and THEN hit pause and let the rest download and then hit play again AFTER they download completely because otherwise, it just starts and stops.
I don't know WTF it is. Is Netlfix buffering that much better or is Youtube shitty?
Youtube is just shitty sometimes.
Some posts deserve a higher mod than 5...
This definitely screams Net Neutrality, and also that networks should belong to the localities in which they reside, as a mere service pipe like any other municipality provided service, especially since those cables were by and large paid for by tax payers in the first place.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
why should two different apps that probably have two totally different delivery mechanisms
What, one greases their bytes so they slide over the network easier?
You think Comcast (who owns NBC by the way, the chief content provider for Hulu) has no idea where Hulu comes from, they just let it on to their network and say "hey we won't count it in this special case"... Netflix, on the other hand, truly does come from wherever Netflix wants it to and Comcast accounts for the bandwidth as such.
Is Comcast giving special accommodation to local/friendly services and not Netflix a neutrality no-no? Of course it is. Is content from Hulu and Netflix the same "thing" on Comcast's network? Of course it ISNT. Hulu is cheaper for them to deliver (aside from other competitive advantages) and they "pass the savings on" as it were. Or, they "violate neutrality by giving special consideration to certain content". It's all a matter of perspective.
Assuming that to be true (it isn't) then half is still not zero. If you're going to calculate cost as "sum of all fractions of pipe consumed end-to-end", that would be fair and neutral -- if it was done for everyone by the same metric, even it ended up biasing one source over another. (Neutral simply means that everyone has the same rule applied equally - ie: it is equitable - it does NOT mean all providers are equal. Just as in science or in news, equitability and equal standards are FAR more important than equal share.)
Comcast isn't being equal OR equitable. It's making sources you buy from it essentially zero network cost and all other sources much more expensive. It's leveraging the (rather obvious) monopoly it has over its network to create a second, independent monopoly in the completely different field of content delivery. That's not ok. That's actually blatantly illegal. It also knows that in an election year where markets are jittery and unemployment is high, nobody is going to do a damn thing about it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm sure the same could be said about communist/socialist types, they're for communism/socialism until they're not.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Which in theory shouldn't be a problem. To get to use the Xfinity service you need a tv cable subscription so you have to pay extra to Comcast. Presumably to pay the cost of the extra bandwidth consumption. In a way, Comcast --the tv cable company-- has to pay Comcast --the ISP-- to deliver its content. The question then is, does Comcast --the tv cable company-- pay less for badwidth than would Netflix, Youtube, Vimeo, etc?
Net Neutrality is at its heart, a problem of anti-trust, of monopoly abuse, of a corporation using its power in one market to further another market.
But... the future refused to change.
In a different world view, and one that is equally valid, is Comcast provides multiple products over the same pipe. The "Internet connection" is capped per the subscriber agreement (which by the way, pay approximately $50 more a month for a business Internet connection and caps go away and you can get static IPs to host your own services). The Comcast Xfinity App is provided under a different access arrangement. That they happen to use the same pipe is not meaningful. The Comcast Xfinity user is paying for an additional service bundled into their cable TV service. Likely Comcast VOIP service does not count towards the cap while Vonage likely does.
I have a solution for Netflix, as Comcast makes profit from the Cable subscription supporting use of the Xfinity App, Netflix could pay Comcast a portion of their profit to move Netflix into an additional service branded as Comcast Netflix... So it is not like Comcast is "giving away" the bandwidth for Xfinity usage. It is part of the bundled cost of cable tv service.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
This person sounds like they are just complaining to complain, or worse, work for netflix or hulu.
Did you read the headline? The guy complaining is the guy that runs Netflix:
Netflix CEO Accuses Comcast of Not Practicing Net Neutrality
When you're buying wholesale bandwidth it's per second and not on total transfer. You can max out the commit 24/7 and pay the same amount as never using it. The only reason dedicated server / VPS companies charge you on transfer is to make extra money. You'll also notice that some will give you a crazy amount of transfer. That's because it normally doesn't cost them anything more if you transfer 1 meg over their line or 1 gig.
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
At a certain point the peerage costs would be equal or greater to just going to the big content providers (Netflix, Youtube, etc) had having them host a cached version on the internal Comcast network that Comcast subscribers would hit first before trying to go out over a peered link (which should then not count against the cap since it's internal).
Since they're not doing that but directly trying to drive customers to the Comcast Xfinity and away from being paying customers of their competition (both in services and in content). They've kind of crossed a line methinks.
People seem to like the idea that "bandwidth is next to free" and the cost is only in the last mile, and for all intents and purposes it has gotten very cheap compared to years gone by but if it were free (or somewhere approaching free) then explain to me how CDNs are a multi-billion dollar a year business, please. Surely it can't be that network operators at the national level are interested in optimizing traffic (in the name of reducing costs) by moving the content closer to the consumer, can it? But but but bandwidth is free! If Akamai were going to earn $1 billion a year from moving data around surely they are doing it by hand-delivering DVDs to consumers thus reducing the last-mile cost! Oh, wait, that's a different company.
First: Akamai: they make lots of money to improve the user experience and lower the resource load on servers, nothing more, nothing less. Having worked at companies that have used Akamai and served 10s of thousands of concurrent users, I can definitely tell you what happens when, say, Akamai goes down at an inconvenient time - load spikes at your datacenter can go up 1000-fold or more, as your servers struggle to serve all those images marketing thought so nifty to include everywhere, resulting in lots of slow page loads, dropped connections, and unhappy customers. The cost of hosting enough hardware to serve the need yourself is far greater than using a service like Akamai, especially since it usually isn't a constant need.
What's the difference in cost of sending one packet across a network vs 1000?
Bandwidth is next to free, as long as you haven't saturated the connection. Once that occurs, the connection will need to be upgraded or otherwise expanded to be able to carry more data. At that point, there's an infrastructure cost. But otherwise, the costs are relatively constant, since the network doesn't shut down merely because no one's using it.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Nope, both are transmitted from a regional CDN (Content Delivery Network) to the user.
If Comcast doesn't want to expand their capacity at the peering point, they could invite Netflix to colo a cache of their own on the Comcast side of the peering.
If the cost of upstream bandwidth or peering capacity was really much of an issue, they would have done so by now just for the money savings.
So if comcast asks why I'm paying for one subscription but sharing my cable connection with the neighbors I can tell them, "don't worry, it's not going over your network"?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Comcast == Xfinity.
Turn down the encoding of the YouTube videos. At some point they started trying to stream everything at 1080p which is awesome, but the bandwidth usage is too high for pretty much most links. They'll stream just fine if being viewed at 720p or 480p once the bandwidth is dropped and look fine since very few of them are actually recorded at anything higher than 480p anyway.
well, if they had a cap of 20gb and overage charges of 10 bucks per 20gb, then 99% would use just 20gb. so they could then justify cutting it to 10gb.. and then to 5 and then to 2.5..
that's why stats about usage in bandwidth cap scenarios are bullshit, the stats could always be used as reasoning to halve the cap. comcast has heavy inside-company accounting incentive to make the bandwidth go away totally so the user would be "engaged" with their inhouse services only.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I have worked on the bill pay side of intercarrier compensation and have also worked on the accounting side of intercarrier compensation. I've done this for wireless, CLECs, and for ILECs. The way that a large carrier pays for bandwidth is not like you assume. The carrier will purchase drains with other carriers that have a lot of peering (such as Level3). That drain (usually GigE or 10GigE but there are still OC circuits being used) has three different charges associated with it. The first charge is the access charge, this is just a charge for the circuit and access to the POP that the peered carrier is at. Next you will have a minimum commitment based on a certain amount of bandwidth at the contracted per megabyte rate (which is usually a few dollars per megabyte but it is lower than it sounds when you hear how the bandwidth you are billed for is calculated). Most contracts the bandwidth comes from a sample. For example you might have the prior month split into hour long segments. Level 3 would take the hour that falls into the 75th percentile and bill you based on the number of megs of bandwidth used during that hour.
Well keep in mind, when people talk about "the free market", they're not always talking about the same thing. It all depends on whose perspective your looking from, and who you think should be "free" in the market. Is a "free market" the market where *customers* are free, in that they are permitted to choose freely between different vendors of different products, based on the quality of those products? Or is a "free market" a market where the *vendors* are free, in that they are permitted to manipulate the market in any way that they're able, including fraud and monopolization?
When Comcast says they want a "free market", they're talking about the second one, where vendors are free.
Comcast is doing something unethical and probably illegal as well.
Unethical and Illegal. The U.S.A. corporate society is in the shitter for precisely the reason the parent-post could not write them as logical equivalents of each other. The corporations can't help themselves when there is no law explicitly prescribing or prohibiting whatever it is they want to do today.
Or chop it into little pieces and keep it from T-1000-ing a la AT&T.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Your statements make no sense.
In peering agreements, the side which is sending traffic has to account for the balance. Here, Comcast is receiving traffic (from Netflix) from an outside network. They are creating a balance surplus on the Comcast side of the peering, which means that Comcast can send more data out-of-network without invoking any financial remuneration specified in the agreement.
Their plans are much bigger than that. The major telecoms/isp want to become internet publishers, they already see themselves as such, in their greedy little minds they feel they should be paid as such.
They want to put every content producer who doesn't pay them a percentage of revenues on strangle band, low bandwidth and high traffic cost. This ensures content 'er' published by the telecom/isp has a significant competitive advantage and competing content is basically driven out of business.
Partnering with the MPAA/RIAA et al is just an illusion, as far as the telecom/ISPs are concerned they are competing publishers. They want the content producer to come to them direct. The current administration has only been paying lip service to net neutrality, Obama is a corporate stooge, whilst smiling at the people he has quietly been slipping the knife in and the Uncle Tom administration is turning a blind eye to the end of net neutrality.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
If it crosses onto a public IP block then it is internet traffic even if it's just you talking to the guy next to you. Have it as Intranet traffic they would need to use the reserved blocks for all traffic per RFC1918.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Obviously Mbps.
Virtually everything above buying shared hosting or low-commit-vms is charged by throughput (bandwidth), not usage (total megs transferred). Sometimes it's 90th percentile, but it's it's always about bandwidth.
But making a company not screw customers and not scheme and violate basic civil and federal laws "would be communist."
Even *worse*! It'd be SOCIALISM!
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Why is it that the US is still stuck in the dark ages of the Internet?
"Comcast has no say in where this service is located" is incorrect.
It is common for content providers and eyeball networks to negotiate where and how they meet. That's true if it is a free or paid peering or a transit relationship. In peering both sides negotiate for what they want, and if there is an imbalance it's made up for by charging (paid peering). In transit, they can offer cheaper connections where they want the content to be located, and more expensive ones in other cases.
The correct way to reform your statement is "Comcast cannot unilaterally dictate where it is located."
In capitalism it's Man Exploits Man.
In Soviet Russia, it's just the opposite.
As he is talking about transit, its safe to assume it is megabit-per-second.
Too true. Strip America's laws and tax code of regulations and loopholes paid for by Corporate America, and said laws and tax code would become much simpler.
However, I don't believe that is what Corporate America is seeking when they say that America's laws and tax code need to be simplified...rather, all evidence insists that they want the tax code simplified down to Corporate America and its owner/operators are to be exempted from taxation and the law simplified down to Corporate America and its owner/operators can do whatever they will with absolute immunity from criminal and civil liability.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Cell phone companies have a cap and now Internet Service Providers what are we back in the metered internet days again. I suddenly have flash backs of free 20 hours of AOL disks arriving in my mailbox.
http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
As a disclaimer he did write "No kidding."
None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
Is this streaming service available to non-comcast customers? (Or is it available for comcast customers to use while away from home, and not on comcast's network). If so, then we definitely have a net neutrality problem. If not, I don't think comcast is doing anything wrong (in this case).
Let me make a silly analogy. Suppose that somebody figures out how to stream video over running water. This is implemented as an open-source standard, and now anybody can transmit video through a pipe of water - you just plug an adapter into your faucet, and you've got an HDMI connection. Naturally, the local water company takes advantage of this opportunity, and offers television service through your pipes. Is this fair to someone like netflix who does not own their own pipes? Should the water company be required to license use of their pipes for people like netflix to use?
The only reason dedicated server / VPS companies charge you on transfer is to make extra money.
No, it's because you're line sharing with their other customers and they need a way to amortize the cost of the line. Available bandwidth doesn't translate well to small, individual customers, so they approximate based on data transfer... much like a cable company does, except the cable company hits you on both ends (speed and cap).
Isn't data from Netflix cached on Akamai edge servers, co-located with Comcast?
Comcast did it with bittorrent...so why wouldn't they with Netflix?
But honestly...when I see the commercials for Comcast, Dish, Time Warner, Verizon...to me, it's all like a group of pedophiles arguing over who would make a better kindergarden teacher. None of them innovate any more than they have to, and have all in one way or another shown poor faith in how they serve the customer base. Home data connectivity in the US is slower than in most other industrialized countries, and the industry has shown no interest in trying to catch up. Last year at the FCC, when called out on the carpet, they started to describe a plan to bring the US up to the same levels as current-day, 2011 Europe...by 2025. I mean, really?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Indeed, Comcast should offer Netflix the option to establish a local cache within their network, and the cost of that cache should be equal to amount Comcast pays itself to host Xfinity. Except Comcast does not charge itself to host its own content beyond the mere floor space and electricity bills. If Comcast ever does agree to host a Netflix cache, which is unlikely, they'll surely will expect to get a profit from that.
This is just monopoly abuse, anti-trust laws should be taking care of this right now.
But... the future refused to change.
There's no such thing as a free market. There isn't a single market in the world that has zero barrier of entry, perfect competition, perfectly rational consumers, and so on and so forth. I hate it when people keep bandying about that term. It's just a hypothetical academic concept, like "frictionless surfaces" in high school physics.
To get to use the Xfinity service you need a tv cable subscription so you have to pay extra to Comcast. Presumably to pay the cost of the extra bandwidth consumption.
So let's eliminate the presumption then, and just have them do the accounting: Don't exempt Xfinity from the bandwidth cap. And if that means Comcast will give you a discount on TV service to compensate for the extra money you're paying for internet service, great. But it also makes them feel the pain they're causing to third parties with their ridiculously low caps, when customers start cancelling their TV service because it uses up too much overpriced data.
How exactly? Does watching cable TV ding your quota? No, it doesn't. Watching ondemand content on a set top box doesn't ding it either. So why should watching the same ondemand stuff on your xbox count against you? AFAIK the columbus project (what we Comcasters call the xbox app) still requires you to be on Comcast's network, using your comcast ID, and you only have access to content you've paid for (for instance you can't watch HBO content if you're not an HBO subscriber). Netflix on the other hand is an over the top, internet only service provided by a 3rd party. Its apples and oranges IMO.
Except that there's no evidence at all that this significantly lowers their "bandwidth bill". Most of their "bandwidth costs" are in the last mile, building and maintaining the cable / fiber that runs to each home, an overhead cost that likely dwarves peering point costs.
This is a shameless grab for money.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
You mean how the PSTN works?
So buy your pro-corporate definition, the old Sugar Trust would not be unethical.
Perhaps the oil and steel trusts weren't unethical either...
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Unless something changed since the last time /. posted about this Xfinity/Comcast topic, people are simply not reading the documentation on Comcast regarding this.
The FAQ at Comcast stated a few things.
First, you must have Comcast cable box service already at the location.
Second, the programming you have access to through the Xbox is the same as or a subset of the programming you have access to through the on demand service with Comcast.
Effectively, it turns your xbox into another cable box for on demand programming. Instead of paying Comcast to have a cable box in your living room and another one in your kid's bedroom, you can force your kid to use on demand through xfinity on his/her xbox. Your kid does not get anything through the xbox that you cannot get on your cable box in the living room.
Programming that is not available on the cable box on demand service supposedly counts against your cap. The only programming that is supposedly exempt is the stuff that is on the cable box.
The only time this is really a net neutrality issue is if the xbox delivers content that the cable service does not - and does not count against your bandwidth cap.
Internet Access Provider (IAP), Internet Service Provider (ISP), Content Services provider (CSP).
IAP = Global/National telecommunications infrastructure Access, the unknown true home of all bandwidth
ISP = Internet Infrastructure Access, the perpetually disappointing source of all desires (more bandwidth)
CSP = Our World Wide Web (W3) of services, the source of all self-vetted believable realities (Ask the gods)
IAP = Who owns the bandwidth path to the ISPs?
ISP = Who owns the bandwidth path to the CSPs and me (EU or US).
The CSPs and me cannot practically access the IAPs bandwidth without an egress through the ISPs backyard (top-level IPv4/IPv6 sub-domains). The IAPs lobby law-makers to keep the ISPs out of their house and the ISPs lobby law-makers to keep CSPs, EU, and US from direct affordable and competitive bandwidth access.
From my parochial view we need to stop paying law-makers for nothing, or pay law-makers far more than their corporate-welfare clients. Then again, we can accept the bandwidth status-quoi and pay whatever the cost set by ISPs.
A Corporate-Welfare economy is not capitalism, but may be a plutocratic economy.
A Drug-Underground is not capitalism, but may be a draconian economy.
Real capitalism and good governance are just hypotheses espoused by our nations' founding parents; So, live with it or hack something different, because the law is the law is the law ....
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
What about Ron Paul?
So they should open their network to other providers, right? With reasonable interconnection fees.
It doesn't matter whether the product is a 'necessity of life'. If they're using bundling or similar behavior to gain a market advantage, then their activity is illegal. Sure, we're not going to drop dead as a result of Comcast's behavior, but 'consumer activism' as a solution isn't enough. We need regulation with actual teeth, and (IMHO) a corporate death penalty that will actually force companies to do the right thing. They've proven time and time again that they sure as hell won't do it themselves.
Does this mean in the future, I will have to pay both Netflix, Microsoft, and Comcast to stream Netflix on my xbox?
Oh dumb pipe, where forth art thou?
Ugh, exactly. We don't want to go (back) there.
Not exactly. The bulk of the construction costs are at the last mile. Wires into homes are built regardless of whether a homeowner uses them, and neighborhood-level equipment must be built and operated (at roughly constant cost per house) regardless of how much downloading or uploading occurs. So it doesn't automatically make sense to count local communication toward a bandwidth cap. Instead, the standard monthly fee seems like a fairer way to cover those costs (and the fee is certainly high enough to do so!)
Long-distance links, while also a fixed cost to build, are used at capacity or near capacity; therefore, they tend to be built according to demand and so their cost is dominated by the amount of bandwidth needed instead of by the number of potential customers.
It does, therefore, make some sense for Comcast to "forgive" local traffic since it usually doesn't go though very many saturated internet links. To evaluate fairness, my question would be, is this a special exemption for Xfinity, or is all local traffic (e.g. file sharing, Skype) forgiven, within, say, city limits?
Of course, if the long-distance costs are very small, as you imply, then that just means the long-distance bandwidth cap ought be large, and overage fees small.
How about internet providers actually invest some more in infrastructure if they are having bandwidth problems? Faster Internet is the reason it's so common today. If we were all still using 2400 baud modems, the internet would not be so widespread as it is today by a longshot. It's the reason we have tons of video flying around the internet, and all the amazing other uses (skype, games, etc.)
Congress should seriously consider passing a law that forbids bandwidth capping. If I have a 5mbps connection I expect to be able to use it as such non-stop. Bandwidth capping just stifles innovation...
There is no market preasure for Comcast to provide fast access to Netflix. You either get access from Comcast or slower DSL. If Comcast doesn't peer with Level 3 then Level 3 goes out of buisness in the regions Comcast controls.
1. Do good.
2. Enforce Net Neutrality by practicing it as one of the largest ISPs.
3. Offer a la cart programming and fully blended IP delivered content and traditional cable delivery methods.
4. End data caps. If an Apple or Google owned Comcast got rid of data caps all would follow or die.
5. Eliminate the absolutely crap cable programming guides and UI
All these cable companies are absolutely horrible innovators. I pray for the day the get eaten alive by a company who delivers a quality product.
My best deal is at a $1/meg for transit
Netflix has several million simultaneous streaming users, and I'd say it is likely Comcast at least has one million simultaneous Netflix streams. 1 million x 1 mbps = 10 Tbbps.
Do you have a 10 Tbps router? Do you know how much that costs? Maintenance?
And of course it isn't one big 10 Tbps router, but actually thousands of routers distributed across thousands of head-ends, along with all the monthly local-loop charges for each of those head-ends. And some of these cable head-ends are pretty far away from major POPs.
Common practice here in Canada with the same "illegal" tactic, maybe with the exception of Telus (i.e. ISP owning content provider). In Roger's case it even own its sports teams (Raptors and Blue Jays). They need to be broken up in maintaining neutrality.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Could you cite your source for the above statement?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Data from Comcast to customer is half the bandwidth compared to data from Netflix to Comcast to customer.
Not exactly. Netflix has deals with large CDNs to basicly setup a big server on your network and stream from there. same way as microsoft updates, apple updates, wow updates etc. Same way as most of the cable company's "ondemand" services work really.
move along, nothing to see here.
He better be careful, his stance could backfire. If Comcast services are not counting towards the cap, then subscribers could watch more netflix. Comcast could have just as easily count their own services towards the cap and netflix subscribers would not be able to watch as much netflix. or is this what Hastings really want???
At least according to my cable company, the transit costs are currently a significant cost and are increasing rapidly.
It's *far* cheaper for the cableco to serve TV/movies from an internal machine and keep it within the corporate network than it is for their customers to stream from Netflix.
Not the same network. Comcast's connections to the rest of internet costs them money to use. They have the right to charge extra for off network traffic.
1. We assume that this "technology" is saving Comcast money and this is the premise for it not counting towards bandwidth caps.
2. We also assume that since Comcast employs this method in their own VOD streaming service that it would be beneficial for competitors. Since this is clearly a win for customers, this is strongly validated.
3. Netflix is complaining that they have no means to stream to users in a manner that does not count towards bandwidth caps.
4. As a corollary to 2, Netflix, if given the opportunity, would've also decided to use this method due to its benefits (this is also strongly validated by the complaint the Netflix CEO has, essentially "it's not fair.")
5. From 3 and 4 it follows that Comcast has offered neither this "technology" nor its associated "savings" to Netflix.
I would say it depends on where the xfinity servers are located. If comcast has the servers on its own network, or has a peering arrangement with the network which xfinity servers are located, it is possible that they are not paying as much for the bandwidth when compared to the bandwidth that is used by their users going to netflix servers. If netflix wants net neutrality on this issue, then they can offer to pay for the bandwidth that connects netflix to comcast.
This reminds me of the old AOL network where content providers paid AOL to be connected to the "premium" access network that enabled AOL users better access. At that time AOL could dictate the terms since it was one of the few games in town which had ALOT of users that the content providers were eager to get their hands on.
A long time ago a local university had really bad connectivity to the internet (it had to go to the "main parent" campus then back out the the internet to reach an ISP that literally was half a mile away. The university and the ISP decided that a "mutual peering" arrangement was beneficial to both since the ISP had more than 70% of the local market at the time and most of the local market communicated in some form with the university servers....
Someone at netflix should have thought of that (peering with comcast/charter/etc) with a "dont charge your users for the cap when connecting to us via the peering connection" deal...
Hulu should also consider that as well....
--
Time is on my side
Could you cite your source for the above statement?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
"There isn't a single market in the world that has zero barrier of entry, perfect competition, perfectly rational consumers, and so on"
Nor is there a single dictionary or encyclopedia in the world that defines "free market" in those absolute terms.
I think of a "free market" as a marketplace where the rules are uniform, and exist to enforce honesty and efficiency rather than favoritism and dominion.
"There's no such thing as a free market."
There's no such thing as a free country either. Doesn't mean we have to hate the concept.
There isn't one truly free market person in Congress on in Corporate America.
What about Ron Paul? I'm under the impression that he's for the free market whether it hurts corporations or helps them.
I dislike Comcast because of this kind of behavior. Unfortunately, they are by far the fastest and most stable connection I can get for the money in my area. They are also right on top of the IPv6 thing. So conflicted...
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Welcome to the future Internet. It's called TV.
Nah. It's called decentralized distributed quantum networking.
In the distance you hear an ominous moo.
In AU transit to everywhere is via some very overloaded underwater fiber; the last mile is dirt cheap.
In the US transit is dirt cheap, but the last mile infrastructure is terrible.
Thus AU ISPs try to cache everything locally, but in the US no one bothers.
So buy [sic] your pro-corporate definition
Are you retarded? Nothing I said was pro or anti-corporate.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Just to be clear the price he's quoting is most likely $1 for 1 megabit per second for 1 month. So that's about $1 for around 316 gigabytes of data.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You didn't read some of the other postings - where at least one posted that some items were merely redirected from Hulu. Which would make the comparison apples to apples.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.