Netflix Blinks, Will Pay Comcast For Network Access

We've mentioned several times the tension between giant streaming sources (especially Netflix), and ISPs (especially Comcast, especially given that it may merge with Time-Warner). Now, Marketwatch reports that Netflix has agreed to pay Comcast (amount undisclosed) for continued smooth access to Comcast's network customers, "a landmark agreement that could set a precedent for Netflix's dealings with other broadband providers, people familiar with the situation said." From the article: "In exchange for payment, Netflix will get direct access to Comcast's broadband network, the people said. The multiyear deal comes just 10 days after Comcast agreed to buy Time Warner Cable TWC -0.79% Inc., which if approved would establish Comcast as by far the dominant provider of broadband in the U.S., serving 30 million households" I wonder how soon until ISPs' tiered pricing packages will become indistinguishable from those for cable TV, with grouped together services that vary not just in throughput or quality guarantees, but in what sites you can reach at each service level, or which sports teams are subject to a local blackout order.

Comments

If Comcast were Exxon

[DulcetTone]

They'd be receiving money from Sears when I drove my car to the mall.

Why do people accept this?

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Hognoxious]

I don't see an alternative other than regulation. And regulation reduces profits, so it's communism.

George Washington gave his life to fight against communism in 1776. If you don't believe in profits, you're literally pissing on GW's grave, you bastard!

Just pay up, and if you don't like it then move to North Korea.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[x0ra]

Regulation leads to regulatory capture, which leads not to communism, but to oligarchy. There has been no real implementation of "communism" anytime, anywhere.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[FuzzNugget]

Because internet, that's why. A person is smart, people are fucking retards (or something like that)

Somehow, wiring and routing equipment complicate simple principles like preventing monopolies from engaging in extortion.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[TheGratefulNet]

there are 8 bits to a byte and a spare byte in an IP packet is nothing, these days.

we should assign bit numbers to the ISPs. we could call them 'evil bits'. I think its a brand new idea! you could make policy routing decisions based on that.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple Answer: Government Granted Monopolies.

People accept it because they have no other choice, in many cases. When laws exist prohibiting even cooperative ISP's forming to provide competition, you're kind of up shit creek, unless you want to go with much slower 56k/dsl/satellite service...

As for why they put up with the laws, well, there's this two party system we have...and corporations pay both parties...rarely is there much choice on matters such as this at the ballot box.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[beelsebob]

Because the finance of the internet is based on a sender pays model. Peering agreements only work when you actually have (roughly) equal traffic with another ISP. In this case, the ISP serving netflix has significantly higher data sent from it than Comcast's network, so they need to start paying comcast to transport that data.

This by the way, is at the same time, why bandwidth caps and metering on a home connection is bullshit –because what you're paying is paying only for the data you send, the data you receive is already payed for by the sender.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm certain that Comcast would be much fairer to their paying customers if we drowned "Daddy government" in the bathtub.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Zynder]

Some people actually believe everything you wrote.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[evilviper]

If Comcast were Exxon They'd be receiving money from Sears when I drove my car to the mall.

In this case, Sears intentionally blocked off their parking lots, forcing customers to drive over and park on long stretches of Exxon's roads... And Sears' solution to this is to ALLOW Exxon to host a free Sears kiosk in all their gas stations...

The analogy is straining... but that's about right.

Why do people accept this?

Because Netflix's ISP (Cogent) is a douche bag of the highest order, who ALWAYS claims to be the innocent party in peering disputes, while they're almost always massively in-the-wrong, behaving unconscionably, and refusing to either admit to or remedy the problem they're causing.

Without in-depth details about the exact details of the Netflix disputes between Cogent and Comcast, Verizon, and others, I'm going to assume Cogent are acting like pricks, as usual, and give the other ISPs every benefit of the doubt.

Re: If Comcast were Exxon

[geoskd]

Woosh

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Attila Dimedici]

That is not true. There have been several implementations of communism. They have all been relatively small scale. As far as I am aware, the only ones which were at all successful were religious communities (See Hutterites). The thing to notice about all of the implementations of communism is that they were purely voluntary (that is, those who did not wish to take part in communism were free to leave the group).

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[x0ra]

Hutterites are not such a particularly "free" communities, more alike to a religious sect... http://lethbridgeherald.com/ne...

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[thaylin]

That does not matter if 100% of the traffic is at the request of thier customers. You would have a point if netflix was requesting huge amounts of traffic to comcast, as comcast does to netflix, but it does not, as netflix just hosts content.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Grishnakh]

If there were no "daddy government", there wouldn't be a ComCast. Corporations exist because of government-made laws; in an anarchy, there are no corporations.

The problem is that our government is totally corrrupt and inept. What we need is a different government, which enacts and enforces proper regulation, like every decent industrialized country in the world.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Grishnakh]

No, proper regulation avoids regulatory capture by enacting laws which forbid it. Other countries don't have a problem enacting and enforcing proper regulation while avoiding regulatory capture. It's just the US (along, probably, with various other corrupt third-world regimes) that has this problem.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[bhspencer]

Possible solution: Modify the netflix player to acknowledge every packet it receives with a response packet of equal size sent to the netflix servers. Now the comcast network would be sending as much to netflix as netflix send to it and their would be balance in the force.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Attila Dimedici]

The Hutterites are very distinctly a religious sect. It is their religious beliefs which allow communism to work in their communities. I have never heard of a communist community that was not religious in nature which lasted more than a generation (and even most of the religious ones quickly failed).

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[green1]

And your average home connection, which is quite asymmetrical, would suddenly drop from being able to stream multiple HD streams at once, to not even being able to stream a single SD stream without issues.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[MickyTheIdiot]

This is absolute bullshit... at least it is now.

Corporations would not wink out of existence now if the government went away. They wouldn't care that they don't have any government charter... they would simply continue.

I've had people make this argument at me when I have claimed in the past, but we are heading toward corporate anarchy in the us. Basically a state were there are no laws (or no enforced laws) and corporations are free to do whatever they wan't, "legal" corporate charter depending on government or not.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Immerman]

Now that is a horrible, horrible metaphor.

Almost from day one the internet was based on a user-pays model. ISPs A and B both have a lot of customers who want stuff from users on the other ISP. Data flows back and forth, and periodically the ISP who requested the most data paid the ISP who supplied that data, based on how many more bytes flowed A->B than B->A. It provided incentive for ISPs to seek out content-providers as customers, or to be better content providers themselves (remember, it was mostly universities to start). As the number of ISPs increased they often decided to decided to save bookkeeping headaches and enter into "nobody pays" peering agreements with other ISPs with whom they had roughly symmetric data flows, but consumer pays remained the norm in any asymmetric exchange.

Fast forward, and some ISPs are now trying to change the rules - rather than paying for the data their users consume and passing that cost on to the users, as has been done since day one, they now want to double-dip and charge the content providers as well, for the exact same data transfer they are already charging their users for I have already paid my ISP for a certain level of internet access, why should I be put up with them intentionally degrading my access to some services?

l As for the "kiosks" I'm assuming you're referring to the caching systems Netflix has offered. And again your metaphor is horrible. Under normal rules Comcast would be paying Netflix's ISP for every byte of data transferred, but Netflix offered them an optimized caching system so that instead of having to upgrade their systems to handle the load their customers demanded, as well as paying for the data itself, instead they could simply pay to transfer a single instance make all the free copies they wanted, saving them a bundle.

>Without in-depth details about the exact details of the Netflix disputes between Cogent and Comcast, Verizon, and others, I'm going to assume Cogent are acting like pricks, as usual, and give the other ISPs every benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough. But if it's a battle between ISPs, why are they dragging Netflix into it? Threaten to blacklist or throttle Cogent, and let Netflix either put a fire to their ass to shape up so other ISPs will continue doing business with them, or find another ISP who aren't pricks to begin with.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[x0ra]

Indoctrination and sex-based segregation is no communism.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Jane Q. Public]

Regulation leads to regulatory capture, which leads not to communism, but to oligarchy. There has been no real implementation of "communism" anytime, anywhere.

Both of those are true. BUT... there is improper regulation and proper regulation.

In countries where backbone is (by government regulation) required to be shared (and NOT for free), it has actually led to greater competition and lower prices than in the United States.

Regulation may be a necessary evil. But incompetent or misguided regulation (as we have now in the U.S.) is just plain evil.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[DuckDodgers]

Lack of regulation leads to robber barons who bribe, extort, and blackmail lawmakers into doing what they want, which is just another path to regulatory capture. There has been no large scale successful implementation of libertarianism anywhere for this reason.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Grishnakh]

Oh please; the only reason corporations exist is because the government allows them to exist by legal charter, and because they pay their employees money, which again is created and distributed by the government. With no government, paper money has no value, and corporations have nothing to pay employees. The root of it all is money, and that's a creation of the government. If the government went away, everything would fall apart because of that simple fact; people would have to move to some other form of currency, and corporations would mostly cease to exist unless they control something that can be used as currency (and even here, how would they maintain control of it, without any kind of laws or police to make sure employees don't just seize it for themselves, or murder the executives?).

We're not headed toward "corporate anarchy", we're headed toward (if we aren't already there) corporatist fascism, where the government works for the interests of the corporations rather than the people. Basically, it's something like medieval feudalism, except instead of dukes and lords, we have corporate CEOs, and each corporation is a fiefdom, and all the employees are serfs who have very few rights. The government isn't going anywhere (and in fact, is growing in power) because it's necessary for the existence of the corporations: it creates the money they need to operate, and it maintains the military and police forces needed to protect the corporations from anyone who would threaten them.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[ifiwereasculptor]

Corporations exist because of government-made laws; in an anarchy, there are no corporations.

False. The only difference is they are then called gangs.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[alostpacket]

ISPs are not peers though, they are endpoints. The "equal data" argument only works between two backbone/transit providers. ISPs are requesting that data be sent to them. they don't get to request the data be sent to them and request that they also be paid to receive it.

Also what makes you think you only pay for upload? That makes no sense. Though I agree in that bandwidth caps are bad -- though mostly because they are generally misleading advertising.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[swillden]

Some people actually believe everything you wrote.

For any ridiculous idea you care to name you can find some people who believe it. That doesn't change the fact that the GP is making strawman arguments.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[leonardluen]

and what makes you think the corporations wouldn't employ their own militia in the absence of that govt protection?

heck even now many large corporations already employ their own security personnel.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[KingMotley]

With no government, paper money has no value, and corporations have nothing to pay employees.

The only difference would be that minimum wage would be 1/64 of a goat per hour. Or perhaps we'd all be paid in bitcoins because last I checked, that wasn't government regulated and seems to be doing fairly well.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Attila Dimedici]

No True Scotsman

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Lumpy]

"Why do people accept this?"

Because Americans in general are really really stupid.

Before Cable TV, we had community TV, neighborhoods would put up a large TV antenna and spread it to all homes via coax for a low monthly upkeep fee. Comcast was one of those companies that lobbied governments to make such a thing illegal. If you were to get a neighborhood association to pay for internet for the whole area, they would come in and sue you to hell and back for unfair competition, and get the local government to back them.

MOST americans will support Comcast in this because they are so stupid they dont understand anything outside their little bubble. disclaimer: I am an american, yes a bulk of us... a good 70% are complete morons.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Lumpy]

It's called a kickback, the legal term is "franchise fees".

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Lumpy]

Bullshit. I had helped build a community run Wireless internet system back 10 years ago, we had 10mbps to each home which is more than enough to broadcast a single HD stream and a couple of SD streams at the same time.

If community non profit built on garbage and low end used gear can do it, then the fucktards at comcast,charter,TW,etc can do it.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Grishnakh]

Why would any militia members work for the corporation? The only reason private security works for corporations is because they're being paid. No government = no money to pay people. I suppose they might go back to using gold and silver, but I have a hard time seeing that.

Also, why would anyone continue working for the suits at the corporations, rather than just killing them and taking what they want? Because the mercenaries would stop them? What keeps the mercenaries from just killing the bosses and taking all the gold for themselves? In an anarchy, the people who have the power are the people who are best armed, and are most willing to use violence. You think some 70-year-old suit is going to be able to maintain control?

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[colinrichardday]

in an anarchy, there are no corporations

There probably wouldn't be an internet, either.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. I had helped build a community run Wireless internet system back 10 years ago, we had 10mbps to each home which is more than enough to broadcast a single HD stream and a couple of SD streams at the same time.

Wow. You really believe what you're saying.

Please don't engineer anything near me ever.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[93 Escort Wagon]

I believe you!

Re: If Comcast were Exxon

[Ronin Developer]

Uh....I have been around 50 years and I remember each home having an antenna on its roof or rabbit ear antennas on top of their TV. They used 75 ohm wire...not coax. Coax for tv came with cable.

What I do remember is cable coming and people connecting to the decoder box and sharing it. The cable companies added encryption to stop he widespread sharing of their connection.

If you recall people connecting to a central aerial antenna, you must have lived in the stix or in are seriously economically depressed area as all it took was too wires attached to the screws on the back of your tv.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[leonardluen]

so, what keeps the military from killing the president and other govt leaders now?

corporations are practically governments themselves. they have similar authority structures. i would imagine the corporation would print its own banknotes, or would trade in some item that has intrinsic value. in the past many places printed their own banknotes and they were accepted in various other places for trade. and they would likely accept them in the company owned stores.

people would work for the militia because they would indeed be paid and the force of the militia would provide backing for the companies own banknotes, similar to how you seem to think the govt somehow magically provides value to their currency.

yes indeed i think a 70 year old suit is going to maintain control. money buys loyalty and i guarantee the business men are smart and would be paying their militia well. what makes you think they wouldn't be able to find something of value to continue paying them? they are big and already control a lot of resources. those resources can be converted into something to pay the employees and keep them loyal. they would just hire a few more employees to maintain security.

in the power vacuum if the government suddenly disappeared, large corporations are the best suited to take their place as they already have the internal control and authority structures setup.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Mitsoid]

Basically this. And Oligarchy's..

I'm house hunting, and it's very hard to find a place that has 2 ISP options. So it's either:

1) Fiber-optic, 50Mbps/sec service for $90/month, offered by 2-3 different providers
or
2) Thicknet Coax shared cable connection with a theoretical allotment of 30-50Mbps but probably a realistic Friday night@7pm limitation of1Mbps connection. No other providers operate in the area. Costs twice as much as fiber.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[evilviper]

Almost from day one the internet was based on a user-pays model. ISPs A and B both have a lot of customers who want stuff from users on the other ISP. Data flows back and forth

It was never just "user-pays". The provider has always had to pay as well. I don't know where you got that from. In fact, things were symmetric in the early days, so "user-pays" wouldn't even make sense.

charge the content providers as well, for the exact same data transfer they are already charging their users for

It's not as simple as "data transfer" where peering agreements are involved. The fees you pay aren't there to allow Cogent to dump tons of data on one link of your ISP, forcing them to carry it on their backbone across the country to the end user there, rather than upgrading their own backbone to handle the traffic properly. If you want your ISP to just tolerate all the bad behavior of misbehaving peers, you'll quickly find your fees astronomical, as your ISP gets horribly taken advantage of, and ends up acting as a backbone for others.

Netflix offered them an optimized caching system so that instead of having to upgrade their systems to handle the load their customers demanded, as well as paying for the data itself, instead they could simply pay to transfer a single instance make all the free copies they wanted, saving them a bundle.

All other CDNs pay substantial amounts of money for what Netflix is telling ISPs they should be given for "free". Netflix calling it "free" is pure double-speak. They're the ones trying to get free space, electricity, and tons of bandwidth for their upstart CDN.

But if it's a battle between ISPs, why are they dragging Netflix into it?

They aren't. See the previous article:

http://recode.net/2014/02/11/n...

Threaten to blacklist or throttle Cogent

That's exactly what they're doing. As Cogent dumps more traffic on them, they're just not upgrading the peering points, so Cogent customers see congestion and slowdowns going to/from other ISPs. Netflix is just the biggest customer, the one end users will notice, and Cogent and others like to spin it as a net-neutrality / conflict of interest type story to spin-up outrage, since that's cheaper than actually dealing with the issue, some others don't understand and misrepresent the issue, while some are intentionally promulgating the myth to serve their own purposes. Which are you?

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[swillden]

Very clever :-)

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[gregor-e]

I pay Comcast for 17 mbps of downstream internet. There is nothing in my contract that constrains where I request this data from. The fact that so many of Comcast's customers all choose to fill their paid-for internet pipes with bits from Netflix means that Comcast has agreed to provide adequate infrastructure to satisfy the bandwidth requirements its customers have paid for. If Comcast is unable to provide the bandwidth they have sold to their customers, they are guilty of selling something they don't actually possess. I believe there is a word for this.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Immerman]

It's user pays in the same sense as a grocery store is customer pays. In both cases the business pays for it's "imports", and then passes the costs on to their customers.

Cogent isn't dumping data onto Comcasts network, Comcast's customers are *requesting* that data - that data is part of why they're paying Comcast in the first place.

Again, if the issue is Cogent then Netflix should be left out of it. Once the precedent is established do you really think Comcast would *stop* charging Netflix if Cogent were to get their act together? Let the ISPs duke it out however they like, but leave the endpoints out of it. If Netflix doesn't like the result they can change ISPs - I hear Comcast's backbone can handle the traffic.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[InvalidError]

Even if the first mile market was fully open, infrastructure is almost always a natural monopoly: the fewer infrastructure providers of a given type there are, the higher the existing providers' network attach rates are and the lower total network maintenance costs per home passed become. That's why even the most "competitive" markets all around the world only have 1-3 wired communication infrastructure providers.

The very high building costs make it impractical for extra players to enter the market, fight to gain an increasingly small chunk of the market and hold on to it long enough to recover the initial costs: if it costs 2G$ to wire a market of 1M potential subscribers, that's 2k$/sub if you had 100% take-up rate but if that market already has two established players, you are going to have a hard time reaching 33% market share and that knocks your expected build cost up to 6k$/sub.

Having only one hypothetical company investing 2G$ to offer services to 100% of the subscribers is a lot more cost-efficient than three companies investing an aggregate total of 6G$ to serve only ~33% of the public each.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[green1]

If they were willing to change their networks to accommodate things then the proposed solution wouldn't be needed in the first place.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[The Grim Reefer]

If Comcast is unable to provide the bandwidth they have sold to their customers, they are guilty of selling something they don't actually possess. I believe there is a word for this.

Profit?

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Camael]

There's so much spin and misinformation in above post.

It's not as simple as "data transfer" where peering agreements are involved. The fees you pay aren't there to allow Cogent to dump tons of data on one link of your ISP, forcing them to carry it on their backbone across the country to the end user there, rather than upgrading their own backbone to handle the traffic properly.

No, the fees you pay are for your ISP to provide a service, i.e. the transmission and delivery of digital content you choose over their network. And if you request Netflix to stream movies to you, your ISP by golly is contractually obliged to deliver that data to you . When Netflix/Cogent sends that data which you requested to your ISP, calling that transmission "dumping" is clearly 1. untrue and 2. BS.

That's exactly what they're doing. As Cogent dumps more traffic on them, they're just not upgrading the peering points, so Cogent customers see congestion and slowdowns going to/from other ISPs.

Not only Cogent customers. The customers of that ISP will also notice the slowdown . Take Verizon for instance. When/if Verizon refuses to upgrade peering points, all of Verizon's paying customers who use Netflix will be affected. So, what do you call failing to deliver a paid for service to your own customers?

Stop taking the ISP's side and look at the average consumer's point of view for once.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[FuzzNugget]

Fair enough. My point on general retardedness stands.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[F.Ultra]

It does matter since that is how ISPs have set up the pricing model, that it's completely illogical is besides the point.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[rtb61]

Reality is a sound moral sane society should focus on 'COSTS' for the majority not 'PROFITS' for the minority. The psychopathic viewpoint is how much proft can be extorted out of broadband, the sane viewpoint is how cost efficient it can be for the majority so as to benefit the whole of society. They will not target downloaders they will target uploaders, basically unlimited download but with severe caps on uploading and major costs to increase upload capacity, this silencing the majority and gaining control of broadband.

They of course need monopolies to force all the cost on uploaders but their intent is to force bills of tens even hundreds of thousands of dollars on uploaders. It will be cheaper to personally deliver content than to use broadband to achieve the same. Of course psychopathic mentality means not all will pay the same rate, put up a message they don't like and expect you rates to skyrocket. Insatiable greed means of course they will still target downloaders but uploaders are the first target as their wish is to turn the internet into a 24/7/365 compulsory propaganda machine.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Altrag]

And lack of regulation tends to lead to monopolization. Pick your poison.

At least in those kind of massive-barrier-to-entry fields like national telecom.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[gclef]

It's not quite that simple. The GP post is correct that Cogent has a horrible reputation in the industry. Here's a synopsis of the most common Cogent dispute:

1) User in New York on ISP A requests data from Server in San Francisco on Cogent.
2) ISP A and Cogent interconnect in San Francisco and New York.
3) ISP A wants Cogent to carry the traffic to New York and drop it onto the ISP's network as close a possible to the customer (cold-potato routing), Cogent wants it off their network as soon as possible so they drop it onto the ISP A San Francisco interconnect (hot potato routing).

The question boils down to: which one of them is going to have to build a bigger national backbone to handle the extra traffic from the user in New York? Neither one wants to, and wants to force the other one to do it.

As to why ISPs are not blacklisting Cogent: they are. That's what all these bandwidth problems with Netflix are about: ISPs are playing chicken with Cogent, trying to force Cogent's customers to bully them into upgrading their network. ISPs aren't limiting Netflix: they're refusing to upgrade interconnects with Cogent until Cogent starts using cold-potato routing.

In this case, one of Cogent's customers blinked before Cogent did, and side-stepped the problem.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Registered Coward v2]

No, proper regulation avoids regulatory capture by enacting laws which forbid it. Other countries don't have a problem enacting and enforcing proper regulation while avoiding regulatory capture. It's just the US (along, probably, with various other corrupt third-world regimes) that has this problem.

That is an interesting view of regulatory capture, which basically states companies use regulations to limit competition and maintain higher pricing. If you look at Europe for example, companies were and no doubt still are quite good at it. Airlines for years enjoyed monopoly pricing and even now are trying to stop low cost carriers from invading lucrative routes via regulations. Laws enforcing minimum selling prices results in consumers paying higher prices since more efficinnt companies cannot charge less than a tiny mom and pop. Telecom providers have been able to charge roaming fees despite the cost of carrying such calls is small. France is looking to stop Amazon by regulating what the must charge for books in order to protect existing bookstores. If, as you claim, regulatory capture defines a country as third world and corrupt the EU would fit that description quite nicely.

Re: If Comcast were Exxon

[Lumpy]

" Coax for tv came with cable." You may have been around, but you did not pay attention.
Coax has been around for a very long time, 60+ years in fact. If you did not live in a suburbia then you never saw the single 60 foot tower with the antennas that were then fed to many of the homes. My dad used to sell and install these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

For a nice example for you old timer.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[realityimpaired]

Bullshit. I had helped build a community run Wireless internet system back 10 years ago, we had 10mbps to each home which is more than enough to broadcast a single HD stream and a couple of SD streams at the same time.

Really? Because 1080p h.264 *can* be that low if you compress the hell out of it, but we've found at the company I work for that anything less than about 4.5-5mbit for the video (and another 1mbit for the audio) is basically unwatchable on a big screen TV, due to compression artifacts. We actually encode HD at a higher bit rate than that for our own IPTV offering, and SD comes in about 4.5mbit with the audio included.

And that's using h.264, which didn't exist 10 years ago. You were able to get an HD stream + a couple of SD streams on a 10mbit connection? Must've looked like shit....

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Drakantus]

>No government = no money to pay people

False. Evidence: bitcoin. Alternative evidence: gold, silver, platinum, or any other commodity of high value.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Grishnakh]

Corporations don't have bitcoins, or gold or silver. They just have some bank account that says in a computer database that they have "dollars". So if the government disappeared tomorrow, they'd be broke, except for the places that really do have those things, or control some other valuable resource. The jewelry corporations (and local stores and such) would be very wealthy, the oil companies would probably be very wealthy (valuable and useful commodity), but someplace like Oracle? They'll be broke.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[wvmarle]

They'd still have to provide something in return to those militias. Some kind of reward for their services. Currently, that reward is money - without money or something equivalent no militia is willing to put their life on the line for someone else's business.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[leonardluen]

yes indeed they would pay their militia. Corporations are large and control a lot of resources i am sure they could find something of value to use to pay their militia.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[jimbolauski]

Your analogy is bad, the fuel powers you to get there, the roads get you there. It would be like the government charging sears a percentage of all the sales sears made because their customers use the government roads.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[leonardluen]

oracle still has a useful product that people want. (not sure why) but because of this they might survive. people would be willing to trade other resources to them for their product. which requires specialized skill and knowledge to produces, and this creates value.

a company like Apple on the other hand is potentially screwed. simply because they hold so much money in the bank all of which would be useless now, so they would lose nearly all their value. the only value they would have is whatever products they currently have in a warehouse, and their manufacturing abilities, which much of that they purchase from other people and don't do in-house. however they would have some intellectual value in their developers.

i don't agree with all you are saying but some of the tech companies would possibly be screwed.

Intel might survive as they still own most of their foundries and their product takes a lot of specialized skill and knowledge to produce.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Grishnakh]

It seems to me the software companies would mostly be screwed, because anyone would be able to just copy their product for free. No government = no copyright enforcement. The only defense they'd have is the need for customers to pay for support services.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Wycliffe]

With no government, paper money has no value, and corporations have nothing to pay employees. The root of it all is money, and that's a creation of the government. If the government went away, everything would fall apart because of that simple fact; people would have to move to some other form of currency, and corporations would mostly cease to exist unless they control something that can be used as currency.

I actually agree with most of what you say except for this part. Money is a creation of the government only because the government
has laws and a military saying it is so. Without the government, corporations can easily create their own currency. Without a government
a "walmart gift card" would probably be worth more than government issued money. Same with a "taco bell certificate", etc... You don't
need a government to create money, a store of wealth, or an incentive for people to work.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[madhatter256]

In mobbish term it is called "protection money".

It'd be a shame if something bad were to happen to all of this streaming data...

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[UnknownSoldier]

> With no government, paper money has no value,

Uh, you DO realize that the medium is irrelevant, right?

It doesn't matter what token you use: coins, paper, or bits.

Money, at its highest level, is nothing more then an exchange of energy. (The second level is a compact way to conveniently exchange time, skill, and/or labor.)

Otherwise, good post!

--
The best thing about America?: Capitalism
The worst thing about America? Capitalism"

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Grishnakh]

The problem here is that corporate-created money might not be worth anything; it's really not much different than the barter system. If some guy has some bread that I want, and I have a chicken to trade, and he doesn't want a chicken, then we're kinda stuck and I have to waste a lot of time trading my chicken to some third party (or worse, 4th and 5th parties) for something the bread-owner wants.

If Walmart wants to buy bread from BreadCo, what are they going to pay for it with? Walmart gift cards? What if BreadCo doesn't want any such cards, and needs something they can trade with farmers for grain? With more niche industries, it gets even more pronounced. Suppose I'm a small company that sells some custom electronic part, and some other smallish company wants to buy it for some internal project. That company makes wheel bearings. What are they going to give me for my part? Some bearings? I don't want or need any bearings, theirs don't even fit any of my vehicles. Maybe they could offer me Walmart, Target, Amazon, Best Buy, and Google Play giftcards. So you end up with tons of different currencies and lots of disagreements about how much anything is worth in any particular currencies, and people having to constantly exchange currencies for other currencies (many people might refuse the Best Buy cards because they think they're worthless since BB overcharges for everything; many would also refuse Taco Bell certificates because their food is shit). This isn't a recipe for a stable economy, it's a mess. Moreover, you can forget about any kind of automation in the economy, not to mention all e-commerce. How do you exchange these currencies online? What if the vendor doesn't take your currency? Bitcoin (or one of its many competitors) might get around this, but the cryptocurrencies have shown their own problems too, namely extreme instability.

Re: if Comcast were Exxon

[BondGamer]

The correct analogy would be if Comcast were Exxon, they would be the gas station who has run out of gas because Exxon hired a trucking company that couldn't supply enough trucks to keep all the gas stations full.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[AutodidactLabrat]

Glad there was one decent Orc in the crowd!

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[AutodidactLabrat]

That is an interesting view of regulatory capture, which basically states companies use regulations to limit competition and maintain higher pricing....If, as you claim, regulatory capture defines a country as third world and corrupt the EU would fit that description quite nicely.

Regulatory capture is not restricting 'cream-skimming' low costs, it is restricting "Gristle abandonment". The USPS, for example, is a burden only because the cheap interCity routes were gobbled up by Fed-Ex and later UPS. Now remote mail is entirely borne by USPS without the offset of low cost intracity and intercity delivery. Regulatory capture is when Nuclear Power Plant owners write Nuclear Waste Disposal rules, for instance and yes, the U.S. is worse at public participation than most of the European states.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[swalve]

It's more like paying a toll to cross a bridge. I pay in one direction, Netflix pays in the other direction.

Who knows? Maybe it is cheaper to pay Comcast directly for access than it is to pay the various telcos.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Registered Coward v2]

That is an interesting view of regulatory capture, which basically states companies use regulations to limit competition and maintain higher pricing....If, as you claim, regulatory capture defines a country as third world and corrupt the EU would fit that description quite nicely.

Regulatory capture is not restricting 'cream-skimming' low costs, it is restricting "Gristle abandonment". The USPS, for example, is a burden only because the cheap interCity routes were gobbled up by Fed-Ex and later UPS. Now remote mail is entirely borne by USPS without the offset of low cost intracity and intercity delivery. Regulatory capture is when Nuclear Power Plant owners write Nuclear Waste Disposal rules, for instance and yes, the U.S. is worse at public participation than most of the European states.

Regulatory capture is not about public participation but rather how companies use regulations to their benefit and how regualtory agencies come to work to the benefit of the regulated; generally to limit competition and sustain higher profits. I would argue the Europeans take a backseat to no one in this regard; although the US is good at it as well.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[delta65]

They'd be receiving money from Sears when I drove my car to the mall.

Why do people accept this?

i agree....it stinks. get ready to pay more for your netflix subscription

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[AutodidactLabrat]

Regulatory capture is about PREVENTING public participation so, yes, you are correct up to the point where you ignore that regulatory capture is more about divesting costs onto the public than it is about increasing control over what remains (though they do that too).
This is where the U.S. "revolving door" fails we, the People, most spectacularly.
Thus the Europeans are doing a FAR better job at forcing profit centers to pay the costs they leave 'stranded' than does America.
Certainly this does not mean that people like Micro$ do not use government to profit, but it does mean that '.docx' was forced to go public rather than have the EU shut down all sales of Micro$ 'patent seizing' of the marketplace.
So, you got it part right, but missed the essential

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[DedTV]

Why wouldn't people accept it? I happily paid an extra $5 a month back in the 90s to get access to local Quake, Unreal and other game servers that were run on my ISP's network. Taking money from Netflix to host their service is no different than what ISPs did with gaming services back in the dial up days of the internet. But since Netflix charges their customers it makes more sense to have them pay the ISP and decide for themselves how, or if they pass the costs on to their customers.

I don't see what people are upset about. If Comcast was actively throttling Netflix traffic after it got to their network unless Netflix paid them, then it'd be something to rage over. But as that doesn't appear to be the case, the only people who have any reason to be upset are the investors and employees of current CDNs and transit networks since ISPs can now compete with them.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Attila Dimedici]

Oh no, there have been many implementations of communism which were not voluntary. They all failed catastrophically.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[evilviper]

The fact that so many of Comcast's customers all choose to fill their paid-for internet pipes with bits from Netflix means that Comcast has agreed to provide adequate infrastructure to satisfy the bandwidth requirements its customers have paid for.

Just wait until Netflix decides they don't like paying for internet access anymore, and tells Comcast that THEY have to run free pipes to their door, or else their customers don't get Netflix anymore. After all, YOU paid Comcast to get Netflix, so, in your imaginary world, Comcast has to do ANYTHING Netflix wants, no matter how badly they act.

Re: If Comcast were Exxon

[MaxCasey]

governments print money but they don't give it value. The value is produced by the individual who trades skill or service for it because he knows he can use it to in turn barter it with another individual.

Re: If Comcast were Exxon

[MaxCasey]

Actually bub, the Federal Reserve, a private bank creates money. The government can come and go, but the bankers remain the same.

Re: If Comcast were Exxon

[Grishnakh]

No, the value is given by the aggregate activities of the nation. The value of a nation's currency is a perception of that nation's economic strength and stability.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[smellotron]

You think some 70-year-old suit is going to be able to maintain control?

If he murders people left and right and scares the fuck out of everyone else, then yeah I would stay off of his lawn.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[smellotron]

If Walmart wants to buy bread from BreadCo, what are they going to pay for it with? Walmart gift cards? ... This isn't a recipe for a stable economy, it's a mess.

I'm not sure what your point is with all of this. Your argument seems to be "if the US government disappears overnight, things fall apart." But that's not very constructive, because it's based on an extremely thin premise: immediate devaluation of USD to 0; no massive worldwide selloff, just *poof* it's gone. Furthermore, you don't seem to be able to see past the initial messy period. Sure, there will be a large barter economy. But that's not new, people have survived with barter economies in the past! So, something will appear to fill the USD void, and stability will slowly return. Because if it didn't, then we wouldn't be talking about this today. We would be trading goats and ball bearings, and murdering 70-year-old men in suits.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Registered Coward v2]

Regulatory capture is about PREVENTING public participation so, yes, you are correct up to the point where you ignore that regulatory capture is more about divesting costs onto the public than it is about increasing control over what remains (though they do that too).l

Regulatory capture is about increasing profits by using the regulator to create conditions favorable to the regulated over other potential entrants into the market. after all, profits are the sole reason a for - profit (and some non-profit) corporations exist. While limiting public participation could be a method to do this it is not the goal of regulatory capture. Perhaps the best way they do this is in acting barriers to entry for new entrants. Ultimately, regulators create a less competitive market that allows incumbents to generate greater profits.

That is not to say all regulatory actions benefit the regulated. As for making .docx public, what practical effect has it had? Sure, some municipalities went over to Linux but for every Munich there is another that tried and went back to MS. MS, by virtue of its locking, already has strong barriers to entry that will not be breached until there is a profound shift in the way people view computing; once we move from a desktop centric model to a cloud model there will be opportunities to weaken MS' hold on the market as the OS and desktop tools become less important for compatibility. That, however is not from less regulatory capture but rather creative destruction. Of course, MS may figure out a way to locking the new model as well, but I think that is less likely given the lesser importance of the OS and desktop tools. Of course, we may simply swap MS for Google...

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[Agent0013]

If there were 10 competing Netflix-like companies that combined to have the same traffic throughput, would Comcast's network be able to handle it any better? They would be just as overloaded if the traffic their customers were demanding came from multiple locations as it does when most of it comes from one.

Re:If Comcast were Exxon

[AutodidactLabrat]

Practical effect? Nothing less than the adoption in Europe of the highly successful open source suites. In the end, regulation can be done honestly (witness the effect of honest regulation in the Seldane conspiracy) by honest administrations. You won't get that in an admin with 32 men conspiring to committ felonies on the public payroll. You will get it in those with zero felonies committed by employees of the WH who are on the public payroll at the time. In the end, some people have no use for integrity but as stock in trade.

Oh shit

[Enry]

Well there goes the Internet

Re:Oh shit

[paiute]

Here Lies the Free and Open Internet
1969-2014
RIP, Old friend - It was fun.

Re:Oh shit

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

All too true.

The net we knew is truly dying. It goes beyond the death of Net Neutrality and the resulting birth of Net Extortion exemplified by this deal. More and more we see people moving away from rich client browsers and other programs into simpler, disconnected, atomic apps, connecting to restricted, walled garden, internet services. Such services can more easily transition into a pay per-view web, whereas free-visit-traffic websites with no method of charging/locking-in users will find the going difficult. Many are already consciously damaging the usability of their own websites in an attempt to transition them toward a restricted "app"-like format-- the new Slashdot Beta being a prime example.

The internet could be moving towards an earlier proposed vision of it, from the 1980s, when it was proposed that people be nickel and dimed for each additional service they required. Every new service would require -- not a website-- but a new client program, which could naturally be regulated and charged on an individual basis. Somehow,, this outdated model the past is slowly becoming the future of our Internet.

This didn't have to happen. No technological development lead us to this point. This outcome was decided most firmly in the realm of the Law, by the Court system, and with not one pip of say-so from the programming or engineering community which actually runs and maintains the web.

If the internet genie is put back in the box, it will be the result of entirely socially/legally constructed forces.

Re:Oh shit

[Grishnakh]

Yep, we're quickly going back to the days of Compu$erve.

This outcome was decided most firmly in the realm of the Law, by the Court system, and with not one pip of say-so from the programming or engineering community which actually runs and maintains the web.

The programming and engineering communities have no power whatsoever in this society, at least in the US. In the US at least, the lawyers have all the power.

Re:Oh shit

[meta-monkey]

I think that would have been possible before everybody including your grandma was on the Internet. One of the great resources we have in this battle is the mob. Geek culture has become mainstream culture with everybody walking around with an internet-connected computer in their pockets, spending their meal times staring at the screen and their evenings browsing the web, playing games, and watching streaming services. Once the masses see their pretty devices become less useful and their services more encumbered, they will start complaining. This is how we beat SOPA, and we can beat the next atrocity, too.

Not long

[mbone]

I wonder how soon until ISP's tiered pricing packages will become indistinguishable from those for cable TV, with grouped together services that vary not just in throughput or quality guarantees, but in what sites you can reach at each service level, or which sports teams are subject to a local blackout order.

Not long. The cable guys are, in this way, just like the Bellheads. They see their real moneymaker as these blasted tiered services (never mind their historical roots in equipment limitations). Soon you will probably have to buy the Disney package to be able to get the Google package to be able to get slashdot.

What I think of the judges that thought this was a good idea is not fit for slashdot, much less polite company.

Re:Not long

[GreyWolf3000]

But you're supposing that you're paying for consumption. That's a very reasonable ideal.

Netflix is paying for content, which is one step towards turning them into any other "content provider," which is exactly where telcos want them to be. They want to be in between us and Netflix so that Netflix will scratch their beak.

The end game is not you or I paying for tiers of "bandwidth," it's getting us to pay for tiers of "content" -- we should resist this rather forcefully.

Re:Not long

[thaylin]

Its rather funny to see people who think this kinda thing will save them money. At the end of the day it will cost you more money. Less competition, more double dipping.

Re:Not long

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Your basic service pay will be carved up among a bunch of web sites you may not even want.

Comcast built roads to attach to other roads. Now not only do they charge you, but they charge the store you go to, or else a package shipped "might get broken, ya know?"

Re:Not long

[x0ra]

Less competition, more double dipping is only due to regulatory capture, ie. the very same regulation that YOU want. I want no regulation. I want a system where a player like Iliad (owner of French ISP "Free") can come into the market and re-distribute the cards. The fun point is that the French government recently threatened to intervene because cell/internet access was about to become too cheap for the customer and was threatening the interest of historical bloated telcos...

Re:Not long

[thaylin]

No regulation and this will just get worse. It has been shown time and time again. This is a market that requires hudge investment, and have huge monopolies already in place. Without major government intervention, at least paying for the infrastructure, there is no way many will come into the market. Even Google needed help in the areas it has come into.

Re:Not long

[weave]

Not true. If you're willing to reduce your usage from a few hundred gigs a month to just 5 gigs a month, you can save $5 in some markets.

http://customer.comcast.com/he...

If you go over that pathetic amount, you end up paying $1 a gig. /snark

I wonder if anyone actually thinks this is a good deal.

Re:Not long

[thaylin]

Government under power and deregulation is what caused this. My assumption at this point is that you are a tea partier who sees no government control as the only good control, well I am here to tell you that is incorrect.

Re:Not long

[x0ra]

The US is originally a federation of States, not a centralized country. The Federal government has no business in telcos.

Re:Not long

[thaylin]

Does not matter what it was originally, once the Constitution was signed it became a centralized country. Even still your point A has not bearing on point B, especially since telcos cross state lines making them the responsibility of the federal government. Also point is that the federal government created the internet, so you would think that its use within the US would be under their purview

Re:Not long

[Bengie]

Bandwidth is the cheapest part of being an ISP(decent sized). You're talking about reducing the cost of something that makes up less than 10% of your bill

Re:Not long

[whoever57]

AFAIK, Comcast is only throttling down Netflix, not fully blocking it.

And there was me thinking that Comcast agreed not to do this very thing when it bought NBC:

When it acquired NBC Universal in 2011, Comcast agreed to "net neutrality" conditions that prevent it from prioritizing its online content over a competitor such as Netflix. Comcast is expected to offer similar restrictions in its proposed merger with Time Warner Cable.

Re:Not long

[x0ra]

By your reasoning Karl Benz's inheritors should still have oversight power on the automobile...

Re:Not long

[thaylin]

That is a giant logical leap that is not grounded in reality... The internet was paid for by us through the government, and is used by us.

Re:Not long

[vux984]

Bandwidth is neither unlimited or free.

I fully understand this. That is why i am paying my ISP a premium for 100Mb access.

It's rather fun to see people who wand to have those with high income pay more tax, but not having big bandwidth consumer pay more for the pipe access.

What are you on about? I do pay more for 100mbit bandwidth than my brother pays for 10mbit. I am not complaining about this, nobody is.

I, for one, would be happy to subscribe to a cheaper basic service I don't mind to have youtube (or youporn) in 144p if at the end that saves me money.

Be my guest, pay the ISP less for less speed. Lots of people do that.

What does that have to do with the ISP deciding to charge netflix to provide me the high speed access to the content that I am paying them to provide me high speed access to?

This is the equivalent of me going into a restaurant with a bottle of wine. (The wine is netflix, the restaurant is my ISP.)

Now, the rules here are that I can do this, I can bring in my own bottle of wine, but have to pay a corking fee for them to serve it to me in the restaurant. I am fine with this. So I've paid for the wine (netflix), and I've paid for the corking (ISP). So that's all there is too it.

Suddenly the restaurant phones the liquor store and demands money from THEM to serve me the wine. The wine that I've already paid for myself, and which I've already paid the restaurant to serve me.

WTF

I am the ISPs customer. I am already paying the ISP a lot of money to transmit data over their network to me, from any source on the internet at high speed. Why on EARTH should netflix have to pay them as well for what I am already paying them for?

Re:Not long

[x0ra]

You paid nothing for the Internet, your parents did. You are merely free-riding past investments.

Re:Not long

[DuckDodgers]

That would be a fine argument if internet service providers were not natural monopolies. I live in a Philadelphia suburb in which my internet choices are Comcast, dialup, and wireless 3G service (no 4G towers near me). So if I want decent connection speed, I have only one choice.

Now if I could choose between multiple different providers for high speed internet, then sure - let them set their own prices for bandwidth, and competition will drive the internet service providers to keep offering higher bandwidth at lower prices in a bid for customers. But that's not what most of the country has, so if the laws don't force net neutrality, we get screwed and we have no alternative.

Re:Not long

[meglon]

...and then we got the Constitution because that "federation of states, not a centralized country" was completely dysfunctional. Why in the hell is it that the people don't have a clue about history always want to base incredibly fucking stupid arguments on their complete fucking intentional stupidity?

Re:Not long

[KingMotley]

If I wanted to limit my usage to 5 gigs a month, I could save $78 a month by dropping comcast completely, and just using my cellular provider.

Re:Not long

[log0n]

Once built, bandwidth is unlimited and free. The problem comes down to human nature and everyone wanting to make their buck off it.

Re:Not long

[Areyoukiddingme]

Even Google needed help in the areas it has come into.

Google apparently didn't get monetary help. Maybe they should have. They had a good idea. Too late. Too slow. The Internet is broken and tomorrow morning, the lawyers from Comcast will be on their doorstep with a bill for YouTube. At their current rate of deployment, they're a century away from escaping that bill, if they ever can. YouTube will be inexplicably slow for Comcast's captive audience until they pay up. And they won't be able to prove it, and even if they could, Comcast's captive audience will still blame YouTube, not Comcast.

Re:Not long

[Areyoukiddingme]

When it acquired NBC Universal in 2011, Comcast agreed to "net neutrality" conditions that prevent it from prioritizing its online content over a competitor such as Netflix. Comcast is expected to offer similar restrictions in its proposed merger with Time Warner Cable.

Were there any penalties for failing to uphold that agreement? No? It was a gentleman's agreement? And they're no gentlemen.

Who's going to lift a finger to penalize them? No one. The members of the FCC want to pass back through that revolving door into a nice cushy position when their commission terms are up.

Re:Not long

[Walter White]

AFAIK I have Comcast and Netflix. Most of the time when I watch Netflix it wavers between 280SD and 480SD. On a good day I get 720HD. On a bad day - which is all too frequent - I get 240SD. Anything from 280SD and below looks like crap on a modern HDTV.

And yet, at the same time I can run a bandwidth test which shows I get great bandwidth (speedtest.net, local test server.)

I suppose the bottleneck could be beyond the portion of the network between my home and the local speedtest.net server. Or Comcast is throttling Netflix. Either way, Comcast has a vested interest in not solving the problem.

Re:Not long

[rk]

You've never managed a network, have you?

Re:Not long

[lordofthechia]

I think the better analogy is the post office.

You pay shipping to receive packages (to the post office). You also pay for the content of those packages (to whoever you bought the item(s) from).

Now more and more people start ordering stuff from Amazon. The local post office realizes that their mail trucks are filling up and they're unable to pick up all the packages they need. Some of the packages get left behind, some get crammed into the truck (and end up damaged), some make it through.

  They also notice that a third of all packages have Amazon logos.

Does the post office:

A) Use the extra money it has been receiving from postage fees to upgrade it's fleet, buy more trucks, hire more drivers, etc.

B) Pick up on Amazon's generous offer to have some items already stocked, packaged, and automatically labeled next to the Post office so that commonly ordered items can be transferred locally instead of going through the USPS's now heavily taxed fleet?

C) Extort money from Amazon in exchange for their customers receiving their packages in a timely and undamaged fashion (which their customers are already paying for).

Now you can say the main difference is that the post office is charging per package vs selling a service to its customers where they can receive a certain amount of mail (say in pounds) per day. Either way though a service is being promised, paid for, but not fully delivered.

And now to add self interest:

What if you got an ad flyer from your local post office with "Now you can order movies and books from the USPS!" while at the same time movies and books that you are paying shipping to receive from Amazon are getting delayed, crushed, or lost.

Re:Not long

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Now, the rules here are that I can do this, I can bring in my own bottle of wine, but have to pay a corking fee for them to serve it to me in the restaurant. I am fine with this.

First they came...

May I suggest that your previous acceptance of double-dipping is what has encouraged, you guessed it, more double dipping!

I, personally, can't stand corking fees. I've already paid for my bottle of wine. I'm already paying to eat at the restaurant. I have my own corkscrew, for fuck's sake. Just what, exactly, am I paying for when I hand over cash for a corking fee? Greed. Nothing more than greed. The restaurant knows you want your wine. You've already paid for it, after all. And now they can hold your wine for ransom, because they've got you by the balls. Does it cost them anything extra if you bring your own wine? Maybe in the same sense that downloading an mp3 costs Sony some imaginary money.

But you are fine with this, despite there being no rational explanation for any of it. And so the perception is that people don't mind when they have to pay for something twice, as long as they're not paying the same person twice. I am not fine with this.

Re:Not long

[vux984]

But you are fine with this, despite there being no rational explanation for any of it

Yes, I am fine with it. Because I really don't expect a restaurant to outside food and drink at all. And the corking fee is a reasonable compromise.

You get to drink the wine you want; and usually for less than it would have cost you to buy the wine you didn't want, and they still make money.

Is it greed? Sure, in part, yes. But where would you draw the line? Should I be able to walk into a restaurant with my extended family, sit down taking up half the seats in the place, and then pull out a picnic basket? Of course not.

Re:Not long

[NoImNotNineVolt]

It's a restaurant, not a winery.

Much like I expect to be able to bring my own book to a coffee shop, or my own coffee to a bookstore, or my own food to a winery, I expect to be able to bring my own wine to a restaurant.

Of course, many restaurants have decided that it's very lucrative to get a liquor license and start selling absurdly overpriced wine on-premises, netting huge margins. Allowing people to bring their own wine (well, really the same wine that they're selling, but purchased elsewhere at a reasonable price) would enable competition, which is precisely what they're trying to avoid.

So they want to be liquor stores, but they don't want to compete with liquor store. Awesome. Granted, the line does have to be drawn somewhere, otherwise people would just bring their own food, right? Wouldn't you?

I mean, I sure as shit wouldn't. Because what the fuck would the point of that be? I mean, I guess if I really hated the proprietor of the restaurant and was just looking for ways to fuck with them out of spite. Do you really see this as a potential problem? If you do, and you indeed require a line to be drawn, then I'd say that's where the line ought to fall. If a restaurant is an establishment that primarily serves food, then no outside food. If a bar is an establishment that primarily serves alcohol, then no outside alcohol. If an establishment primarily serves both food and alcohol, then that will be reflected by their competitive pricing. If your restaurant charges $80 for a bottle that is normally $30, it's evident that your primary function is to serve food, but holding alcohol hostage is how you make your money.

Greed. Plain and simple. I can think of countless ways to prevent your hypothetical picnic-in-a-restaurant scenario that don't arbitrarily enrich the restaurant. Of course, that's precisely why you don't see any of those ways enacted in practice. Greed. The problem isn't that people would picnic without these kinds of rules. The problem is that profits would fall. The whole picnic basket thing is merely some shitty justification that falsely shifts the topic of conversation from greed to some kind of "but think of the poor job creator" story.

Re:Not long

[vux984]

It's a restaurant,

Right. A restaurant, an establishment to serve meals. A meal, of course, is comprised of food and drinks.

not a winery.

A winery is a farm that grows grapes, and ferments them into wine. Why would I go to a winery for a glass of wine? What if I -gasp- want a glass of wine WITH food?

Of course, many restaurants have decided that it's very lucrative to get a liquor license and start selling absurdly overpriced wine on-premises, netting huge margins.

You do realize mcdonalds charges ~1250% on Coca Cola too right? It costs them ~16 cents for a large coke (and half of that is the paper cup). Why does 250% on a bottle of wine offend you?

The fries are marked up several hundred percent as well; and for what? They open a bag of fries (which are just potatoes) and put them in a deep frier for 3 minutes, and then salt them. Done.

Yet paying triple for them to open a bottle of wine? That is worthy of a rant?

Re:Not long

[vux984]

-sigh- </em>

Re:Not long

[NoImNotNineVolt]

:)

That's why I don't get Coke at McDonalds. Bottle of water, please.

Either way I'm getting gouged, but at least with the water bottle my rapist is several degrees removed.

Many wineries sell their wares on-site, in addition to providing tastings. You go there to drink wine. And they let you bring your own food instead of insisting that you buy their $100/lb cheese and $5 crackers. Because drinking wine usually involves eating food, unless you're a professional :P

What next, baseball games with $10 beers or raves with $10 water bottles?

... oh.

And that's why I'm ranting. Because so many entrepreneurs have discovered that you can assrape a captive market.

Re:Not long

[vux984]

That's why I don't get Coke at McDonalds. Bottle of water, please.

Paying for tap water at bottled water prices is a bigger scam than soft drinks. But at least its healthier. CocaCola gets your money either way.

Many wineries sell their wares on-site, in addition to providing tastings.

Yeah, sorry, a winery isn't a place to "go to eat", even if you can bring food. Several of my favorite wines are from Portugal, Argentina, and South Africa... so going to the local wineries isn't exactly a solution.

And that's why I'm ranting. Because so many entrepreneurs have discovered that you can assrape a captive market.

I agree its a "rip off"; but you know going in what the deal is. You factor it in as part of the price of the event. And if the rave were legally prevented from charging $10 for water, they'd raise the 'cover' charge instead. They aren't going to simply "make less money".

If the market wouldn't "bear it" then some restaurants wouldn't charge large fees, and the wine would be reasonable. There's no artificial factor forcing prices to those levels, so that's genuinely the hand of the free market. There's lots of real competition between restaurants... its not Comcast.

Re:Not long

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Yeah, sorry, a winery isn't a place to "go to eat", even if you can bring food.

And a restaurant isn't a place to "go to drink", even if you can bring alcohol. That's my point. A restaurant charging a corking fee makes about as much sense as a winery charging a "opening your box of crackers" fee. The only difference is that we've already become accustomed to one, but the other would still draw customers' ire as a blatant, unjustifiable money grab.

If the market wouldn't "bear it" then some restaurants wouldn't charge large fees, and the wine would be reasonable.

See, this is where the "free market" rhetoric throws me for a loop. On the one hand, you've got competition putting downward pressure on prices, a hard lower bound with price equal to cost (in the case of corking fees, $0). On the other hand, you've got greed putting upward pressure on prices, with no real upper bound beyond "what the market will bear". I thought one of these invisible hands was supposed to bring about optimally low prices for everyone, but here we are looking at corking fees well in excess of any "cost" associated with letting people drink their own wine. It seems that either competition is lacking (which is clearly false, at least in the restaurant industry), free market economics is wrong (...), or we can agree that a corking fee is just greed at its finest. There's no justification for it beyond that. And indeed, with a captive market (like people eating at a restaurant), greed goes a long way, as a captive market will bear quite a bit.

Re:Not long

[bingoUV]

A restaurant charging a corking fee makes about as much sense as a winery charging a "opening your box of crackers" fee

Ok, both are legal. I don't see a problem.

Practically, dynamics are different. Restaurants typically operate in orders of magnitude more expensive real-estate than wineries. So people picnicking in restaurants is orders of magnitude more expensive for restaurants than for wineries.

BUT, it is legal to operate a restaurant in the middle of nowhere. I doubt customers(if any) would be charged for bringing in their own food/wine/water/furniture there. It is also legal to operate a winery in million-dollar-per-square meter real-estate. I doubt customers(if any) would be allowed to breathe without charges in such wineries.

Re:Not long

[NoImNotNineVolt]

You know what else is legal? Me fucking your wife. Morality and legality are two different issues. Please don't conflate them. I never suggested that corking fees are (or ought to be) illegal.

Anyway, I think we can both agree that it's entirely reasonable for both a restaurant and a winery to only allow paying customers to lounge about the premises. That's not my point. My point is that charging customers for things unrelated to their primary business is absurd and immoral. A restaurant can legally charge a corking fee, sure. They can also legally charge customers for silverware or napkins. They can also legally charge customers based on their height.

The real estate argument doesn't do it for me. It's not like restaurants that charge corking fees will charge you if you're just hanging out and pretending to drink an imaginary bottle of wine, which would take up just as much of their real estate as if the bottle were real.

Greed is legal, yes. The question is, why do you think it's moral?

Re:Not long

[bingoUV]

Morality and legality are two different issues

Primarily my statement was invitation for you (and 300 million other citizens of the US) to change the rules of the game - it being legal and your argument of it being better. Secondarily, this is why my reply didn't end there, I proceeded with arguments why there is no moral issue either. You hadn't made your stand completely clear whether you have a moral or a legal problem with this.

Anyway, I think we can both agree that it's entirely reasonable for both a restaurant and a winery to only allow paying customers to lounge about the premises.

Not complete. "Paying" is not enough - paying enough in most circumstances such that the business model is profitable and acceptable for the culture they are operating in; is what is necessary.

The real estate argument doesn't do it for me. It's not like restaurants that charge corking fees will charge you if you're just hanging out and pretending to drink an imaginary bottle of wine, which would take up just as much of their real estate as if the bottle were real.

Banks incur real costs if lots of people pretend to want to take a loan and endlessly inquire about it. Super markets would incur loss of business if people start meditating in large groups for long periods of time. Restaurants would not like if people start hanging out and pretending to drink an imaginary bottle of wine. Guess what? You are not the first to think about these things.

To cover unforeseen circumstances - most restaurants and super-markets reserve rights of admission, bank executives can refuse to answer your loan queries. Start talking when large number of people start doing these and these will be explicitly prohibited from rules of businesses of banks supermarkets and restaurants. Till then it is few explicit rules and a right to tell customers to fuck off. Having to read a 20 million word constitution of each place of business would kill a HUGE majority of GOOD economic activity, don't you think?

Greed is legal, yes. The question is, why do you think it's moral?

Restaurants do not have anything resembling a monopoly in most markets, they are far from an essential service for most people, regulatory and economic barriers to entry are negligible. The "problems" with greed in restaurants is easily fixable by you starting a non-greedy restaurants. If most people flock to yours, there you are. If most don't, most don't consider the particular variety of "greed" immoral, and hence society in general doesn't deem it immoral. QED.

The argument 'start a business of your own' doesn't hold in monopoly cases, essential services and barriers to entry; for obvious reasons. But that is not the case here.

Re:Not long

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Well said.

Internet access should be a socialized service

[mozumder]

There's no reason for private companies to profit off the basic requirements of a functioning society.

Communications is so critical that the US Constitution writes in the Postal service as part of it.

Internet communications should be treated as a basic service.

Once this happens, we can restructure more government services to be properly internet enabled.

Really, private companies do not serve the interests of the public. They never have. They never will.

Private companies are great at the luxuries of life, not the basics.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Boronx]

I don't understand why we don't just restrict companies to do the thing they're supposed to do. You're a cable company? Ok, you're allowed to sell cable connections into people's homes. You want to say what traffic flows on your cable? Sorry, not in your charter.

Are you a movie company that wants to put in cable that carries only your movies? Sorry, not in your charter.

Of course this means that a company couldn't really own another company.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[mrchaotica]

Vertical integration (i.e., both manufacturing the product and delivering it) is not necessarily a problem. Vertical integration where any part is a monopoly or oliopoly, however, is against the public interest and should not be allowed.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[dnaumov]

There's no reason for private companies to profit off the basic requirements of a functioning society

So there should be no private energy companies? No private guards / security companies? No private education and no private health care? What a crock of shit.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Boronx]

"We" is the people of the United State of America. What makes us special is that we've granted to ourselves the power to govern the country. There is no question that we ought to govern the country, the only question is how. You'd give unrestricted rights to businesses to do what they want. Id restrict businesses from acting in ways detrimental to their customers or to the economy as a whole. This means forcing competitors to compete and not collude, and forcing businesses to avoid conflicts of interest.

Prison companies shouldn't be able to lobby for tougher criminal laws.

Giant agribusinesses shouldn't get together to set grain prices.

Big finance shouldn't be able to recommend buying a security while they short the security.

A company that controls Aluminum transport shouldn't be able to place financial bets that the price of Aluminum will go up.

These are all happening right now, and if we let this continue and grow we'll turn into a corrupt third world hell hole.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[otc-lame]

Communications is so critical that the US Constitution writes in the Postal service as part of it.

and interestingly 225 years later we are still arguing about the very same implementation details For example:

Col: Mason was for limiting the power to the single case of Canals. He was afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were by any means already implied by the Constitution as supposed by Mr. Wilson.

Sounds like exactly what happened when we began to "grant charters of incorporation where the interest of the U.S. might require" anyway...

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[visualight]

Over-generalized definitions:

Socialism: Government is more powerful than, and can control big business. Small businesses thrive on a genuinely level playing field.

Facism: Big business is more powerful than, and can control goverment (the effect being that big business and government have merged). Small business stay small or get eaten.

Capitalism: The monopoly game where one guy ends up with everything.

But,

*All 'ism's' are merely vehicles for propaganda as soon as your brush stroke becomes less than a mile wide.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[visualight]

" I go out of my way to use private entities in lieu of the US Postal service."

Ass. The problem with government services is, wait for it, PEOPLE LIKE YOU, who warp reality to fit your propaganda derived ideology, and then sabotage things so that some fat cat can seek rent. A lot of really well run operations suck -because- they were privatized. The military commissary is one I remember well.

You are ignorant of the reality of why these private entities are able to thrive. It's *BECAUSE* they don't have to deliver every letter to every house and apartment in the country. They get to just do the high margin stuff.

And they absolutely know this, which is why they are meeting and discussing what they need to do to support the U.S. Postal service. 'Big bags of money' is a real option for them, because without the post office, *they* can't survive.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[tranquilidad]

Brilliant, I wish I had seen it before.

Let's socialize all these public services, get rid of the private "high margin stuff" and reduce our choice down to 1 sucky provider answerable to no one.

Then we'll all be equal at the lowest-common denominator.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Wonko the Sane]

"We" is the people of the United State of America. What makes us special is that we've granted to ourselves the power to govern the country.

You've disingenuopusly defined "people of the United State of America" as being "everyone who agrees with me."

There is no question that we ought to govern the country, the only question is how.

Just saying that doesn't make it true.

Maybe you mean "I don't want anyone to questions whether or not we should govern, because the outcome of that debate may not turn out in my favor."

You'd give unrestricted rights to businesses to do what they want. Id restrict businesses from acting in ways detrimental to their customers or to the economy as a whole.

You've granted unlimited power to self-appointed rulers who presume to know the unknowable while pretending to rule "for the benefit of society as a whole."

Even worse, it's not even original in its deception. Just the same old tired trumped-up justifications for power that tyrants and their apoligists have been using for centuries. You could at least try to come up with something new for a change.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[marcosdumay]

There's no reason for private companies to profit off the basic requirements of a functioning society.

There's also no reason for they not. Lots and lots of people profit on food consumption, and that didn't lead to any disaster. The telecom problems have other roots, we'd better focus on those.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Bengie]

There's no reason for private companies to profit off the basic requirements of a functioning society

So there should be no private energy companies? No private guards / security companies? No private education and no private health care? What a crock of shit.

Yes, lets have mercenaries instead of police and judges. Sounds great.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Solandri]

Actually either approach would work. We could treat Internet access as a utility, with pricing being regulated by a government body. Or we could open it up to competition and allow any ISP to compete for your business (so that an ISP slowing down Netflix would be shooting themselves in the foot). The latter is the way most of the rest of world does it.

Instead what we have is some bastardized combination of the worst of both worlds. We have the government granting service monopolies instead of looking out for the best interest of the customers. And we have the companies operating under the self-interest which drives capitalism, but unhindered by competition which is what normally lowers prices and forces improvements.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[anagama]

Umm ... preventing a cozy relationship between corps and govt is fascism?

Exactly where did you go to school? People should know because you're education is staggeringly inadequate.

Just so you know, a regulation forbidding ISPs from being content providers is 180 degrees from fascism. The system we have now, where there's a revolving door between Comcast and the regulatory bodies, where laws are enacted to prevent competition (laws that Comcast purchases) -- that's what fascism looks like. When you can't really see the difference between the govt and the corps (oh, and some blind nationalism in the general populace (no deficit there in America)) -- that's fascism.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[turbidostato]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Attila Dimedici]

I don't think you know what fascism is. Fascism is government control of the economy while still allowing private ownership (as long as those private owners do what the government tells them to). The primary difference between fascism and communism is cosmetic (oh and communists usually kill more of their own people than fascists).

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[turbidostato]

"Fascism is government control of the economy while still allowing private ownership"

Sorry, that's not fascism. That's plain old rule of law.

In order to go from there to fascism you also need totalitarism, statism, autarky. utranationalism, militarism and, then, full entrenchment of corporations and state.

And no, "control of the national economy" is not the same as full planning of the means of production in accord to a national plan.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Attila Dimedici]

No, plain old rule of law is where the same rules apply to everyone and has nothing to do with what type of economic system you use (although I have never seen a country where the government controls the economy which had rule of law). When the government begins managing the economy, rule of law begins to break down. Interestingly enough, the reverse tends to happen as well, as the government stops interfering in the economic decisions of its citizens, rule of law starts to appear in countries which previously had no experience with it.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Boronx]

> You've disingenuously defined "people of the United State of America" as being "everyone who agrees with me."

Really? Where? I'm part of that people and I've got a modicum of that power, and what I'm telling you is how I use my tiny little piece of it.

Either you have power or you don't. If you don't then you have to struggle to get it if you want it. If you do have power, then you must decide how to use it. I think those with power have the moral responsibility to use the power for the betterment of the people over whom they have power. You are right in that correctly judging what's best is really an impossible task, but that doesn't alleviate the powerful from the responsibility of making those judgements anyway.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[turbidostato]

"No, plain old rule of law is where the same rules apply to everyone and has nothing to do with what type of economic system you use"

And therefore all and any economic system gets under the rule of the law -and thus controlled by it, as it happens with any other public affair.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[fnj]

Distributism. Look it up.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[swillden]

Really, private companies do not serve the interests of the public. They never have. They never will.

Private companies are great at the luxuries of life, not the basics.

Yeah, because government-run farms have been so successful, historically. Well, if by "successful" you mean "starved millions".

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[log0n]

A couple things..

1) Your Fascism is bungled with Capitalism. Fascism has fuckall to do with big business controlling government. There is no big business under fascism.
2) Socialism and Fascism are the same thing, one is left wing, the other is right wing. In either case, government controls both (Soc: regulate, Fas: nationalize).
3) Capitalism is the monopoly game where one big business ends up with everything and can control government.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[TubeSteak]

You are ignorant of the reality of why these private entities are able to thrive. It's *BECAUSE* they don't have to deliver every letter to every house and apartment in the country. They get to just do the high margin stuff.

The joke is on tranquilidad (1994300) .
All those private parcel services use the USPS when they need to get a package out to the middle of nowhere.
Without the USPS providing universal service, you couldn't send mail to large swaths of the country... unless you hired a courier.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Anarchduke]

The US Post Office inefficient? Would you like to define efficient? Because by my definition, a company that can accurately route 500 million pieces of mail each and every day is pretty fucking awesome.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Anarchduke]

The US Postal Service accurately routes and delivers over 500 million mailpieces each and every day. We could do worse than the post office.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Altrag]

Because there's no possible way that both a public and a private entity could exist at the same time.

I wonder which reality I'm living in today, the one where UPS exists or the one where USPS exists?

Just to address your "1 sucky provider answerable to no one" scenario though.. I've generally found in my life that in situations where, for whatever reason, only one provider exists, publicly run entities are almost universally better at service the public interest than private entities.

Damned near any example you can find of a natural monopoly being privatized ends up with higher costs and lower service for their customers -- sure the stock price goes up which is great for shareholders and the C*O's who talked their way into the job usually get a nice cushy salary, but it sucks balls for basically everyone else.

Maybe you've had a better experience somewhere along the line?

Public entities are answerable to their government overseers and (in theory at least) therefore answerable to voters. Private companies are answerable only to their shareholders and to fuck with the rest of the world. Generally speaking, the set of "shareholders of company X" is going to be closer to "no one" than the set of "all voters in the jurisdiction."

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Before anyone goes off on how I can send a letter all the way across the country for whatever the 1st class rate is today really consider how inefficient their operation runs. I go out of my way to use private entities in lieu of the US Postal service.

How are they inefficient?

Maybe before you go off about how they are inefficient, you should consider what that word means and how you think they are inefficient.

I would posit it's super inefficient to not use the USPS, and instead pay FedEx/UPS 10x the rate for the same service.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Lots and lots of people profit on food consumption, and that didn't lead to any disaster.

Yes, it did. Hell, it was so bad that we had to involve the government to prevent farmers from being unable to make a living.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[tranquilidad]

The last time I had to mail something via the post office (about 6 months ago):

- I had to wait in line 20 minutes
- The shipping information was filled out on multi-part NCR paper
- The sheets of paper were peeled apart, each one stamped and filed in a separate bin
- I was given a sheet of paper as my receipt
- The tracking options were minimal, at best

The last time I shipped via UPS:

- I filled out the shipping information online
- I printed a mailing label and affixed it to my box
- I dropped it off at a UPS store after waiting about 30 seconds
- I was given a sheet of paper as a drop-off receipt
- I could track the package

A shipping organization that still collects shipping information in triplicate, separately stamps each of the copies, files them in separate bins for later processing and can't provide adequate tracking information is, in my opinion, inefficient.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Actually, I do RTFA]

A shipping organization that still collects shipping information in triplicate, separately stamps each of the copies, files them in separate bins for later processing and can't provide adequate tracking information is, in my opinion, inefficient.

First off, it may in fact be efficient. I mean, the marginal cost per package is higher, but it could be that ways of fixing it wouldn't pay back for N years. Waiting until the next update cycle may be efficient. But I won't make that case.

You were bad at using the USPS. You can, at USPS.gov:

- Fill out the shipping information online.

- Print the mailing label and affix it to your box

- Have some guy who was going to come to your door pick up the package Finally, a difference, 30 seconds savings

I'm not sure about the drop-off receipt or the tracking.

But, yeah, waiting in line at the post office tends to be pretty slow. But its pretty slow when I have to wait in line at the UPS store or the FedEx store as well. So, I think all three are pretty slow if you need help, and are pretty fast to drop off. (I've dropped off packages at USPS in seconds as well.)

But yeah, the USPS has wanted to upgrade for a while from forms in triplicate. There are some issues with the accounting methods they have to use, the way that their surpluses are confiscated and they cannot deficit spend. Which means that they have no way of making a large capital investment. That falls squarely on the shoulders of Congressmen who passed laws making it impossible for them to pay one time costs for long-term efficiencies, solely so they could bemoan the horribly inefficient post office.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Also, you are ASSuming that Fedex, UPS, et. al., couldn't survive or thrive without the USPS. You don't know that. Nobody knows that. Y

Of course Fedex and UPS would survive without the USPS. You just wouldn't be able to (afford to) ship a package to a rural area... and some of the less populous suburbs.

let's not forget how the USPS is losing billions of dollars out the ass every year and the only reason it's able to exist is government loans.

Let's not forget that those "billions of dollars of losses" disappear if they use any commonly accepted accounting system. They have a uniquely dysfunctional accounting system forced on them by legislators who want to bemoan the losses.

Re:Internet access should be a socialized service

[tranquilidad]

I ship items that have to be taken to the shipper and are not eligible for pickup. I often visit UPS hubs and USPS. UPS hubs almost never have more than 1 or 2 people waiting to ship. USPS is almost always at the other end of the spectrum. I hate going to a UPS hub because it's a 45 minute drive for me. I hate going to USPS because it's such a long wait and a hassle.

Skipping efficiency for a moment and commenting on your concept of "update cycle," I'm still amazed that an organization that basically visited every address in the nation on an almost everyday basis completely missed out on the opportunity that made FedEx and UPS what they are today. UPS, in the name of efficiency, had their package car drivers recording GPS coordinates for the addresses they visited and ended up in the map-data business.

Could someone answer this?

[Nyall]

I'm sure netflix has employees whose home internet is provided by Comcast. What would prevent them, or any other customer, from starting up a class action lawsuit (mandatory arbitration maybe) that Comcast isn't providing advertised bandwidth?

Re:Could someone answer this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would prevent them, or any other customer, from starting up a class action lawsuit (mandatory arbitration maybe) that Comcast isn't providing advertised bandwidth?

Comcast's binding arbitration, no class action allowed clause in their service agreement.

IANAL, but I did consult one about suing Comcast for their billing shenanigans

Re:Could someone answer this?

[khasim]

Two reasons.

1. Comcast advertises "up to" X bandwidth. But does not guarantee any specific speed.

2. Comcast can show that you can get "up to" X bandwidth on the local segment. Just not across peering points.

This is another reason that the Time Warner/Comcast merge cannot be allowed to happen.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[locutus2k]

Comcast (and indeed other ISPs) doesn't guarantee speed. They are very clear to point that out in the teeny tiny fine print. They only real guarantee you get is a bill. Since there are no SLAs on home service, just be glad you get a connection at all. The "free" market says they have to make a reasonable effort to keep connections up and running, else they would lose customers. With Comcast 'growing' like they are, they have less incentive to keep the systems running.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[The Cat]

Comcast's binding arbitration, no class action allowed clause in their service agreement.

Illegal

Re:Could someone answer this?

[cdecoro]

Comcast's binding arbitration, no class action allowed clause in their service agreement.

Illegal

Nope.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[The Cat]

that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration

I may not be a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the Seventh Amendment trumps the Supreme Court.

So does Congress.

And the states

And the People

Re:Could someone answer this?

[Wonko the Sane]

I may not be a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the Seventh Amendment trumps the Supreme Court

Nope.

The US Constitution is a very old piece of paper sitting in a museum.

The Supreme Court is a group of people.

A piece of paper is an inanimate object - it can't do anything.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[TheGratefulNet]

fwiw, I have comcast and its been really fast. 50meg/sec download in real honest terms. hard to believe but its true.

even with a vpn and 'watching' (yeah...) movies from europe to the US, I still get 6MB/sec (yes, megabytes) over my VPN, over comcast. this is when I term my connection in a nice safe euro country.

what I hate about comcast is that they don't offer honest pricing. it starts low then climbs and you have to disconnect their service for 6mos before being allowed to renegotiate another 'special'.

still, after being stuck with dsl for over 10 yrs (at t1 speeds or less; usually much less) the 50meg 'blast' pkg is actually quite real and reliable in my area (bay area). I don't have issues with their connection; just their business practices.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[The Cat]

The Supreme Court is a group of people.

Who derive all their power from the old piece of paper sitting in a museum.

You'd be funny if you weren't quite so tragic.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[Wonko the Sane]

Who derive all their power from the old piece of paper sitting in a museum. You'd be funny if you weren't quite so tragic.

What's tragic is that in the 21st century we still live in a world where people believe in fantasy.

That fact that you can say that some people derive power from a piece of paper in apparent seriousness is the tragedy.

I don't want to live on a planet where people believe in magic paper.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[Wonko the Sane]

My condolences for your Tourette Syndrome. That looks like a particularlly nasty case.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[fnj]

That old piece of paper circumscribes the governing law of the land. The Supreme Court absolutely is bound by it. In fact their authority comes from it and it is their solemn duty to interpret it and use it to throw out improper legislation.

Even if that weren't the case, I hold this particular old piece of paper penned by brilliant great men in much higher esteem than nine cynical bought and paid-for buffoons sitting in black robes shitting on the Republic.

Actually the Magna Carta is a lot older than the US Constitution, yet it is still considered one of the greatest constitutional documents of all time, and forms part of the uncodified constitution of that strange and wondeful society across the pond. Three important clauses are still statutorally in effect. The mechanisms in place for altering the US Constitution are much more formal and procedural, and every single word in the US Cinstitution that has not been formally amended is still the supreme authority.

To all those who would cavalierly tear up the Constitution, beware the wrath of patriots.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[The Cat]

I don't want to live on a planet where people believe in magic paper.

Good. The exits are clearly marked. Door. Ass. All that shit.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[Wonko the Sane]

That old piece of paper circumscribes the governing law of the land. The Supreme Court absolutely is bound by it. In fact their authority comes from it and it is their solemn duty to interpret it and use it to throw out improper legislation.

You understand that words mean things, right?

When you say that Supreme Court is "absolutely bound" by something, that's a testible hypothesis, no less so than if I said a brick is absolutely bound by gravity. If a brick could just decide to hover in midair then that would falsify my claim that it was bound by gravity.

Likewise, if you claim that a piece of paper binds people, and those people can be observed to do whatever they want regardless of what is written on said paper, and the paper responds to this violation by doing absolutely nothing at all since it is, in fact, just a piece of paper, then by what possible universe could you say that piece of paper is binding them?

To all those who would cavalierly tear up the Constitution, beware the wrath of patriots.

That would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetically sad.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[TheGratefulNet]

boxes? we don't need no stinkin' boxes!

you must be talking about that quaint old thing the old guys used to call 'tv'. I have not bought tv service for the last 2 places I lived in and have no plans to ever buy it again.

I can't find much on tv that is worth the time, the commercials are soul-crushing and the cost is better applied to other living expenses.

internet is a must-have; but tv has long since been left by the wayside. I guess you must have kids, though; that's the #1 reason people still have not cut the (tv) cable.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[UnknownSoldier]

> A piece of hemp paper is an inanimate object - it can't do anything.

FTFY.

It is a Token or symbol that the power to govern was given by the will of the people.

People create Governments, not the other way around.

The Bill of Rights shouldn't even be needed in the first place, witness the Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Governments exist solely to serve the people but almost every one has been brainwashed into thinking that they need a license (permissions) instead of claiming their natural rights. That document spelled out certain un-a-lienable rights; rights that could not have a lien placed on them; Ergo, licenses are a constitutional perversion, as are many other abuses of power. The general problem with America is apathy, that is, not enough people give a fuck -- they would rather watch their (un)reality shows, their sports, their faux news, etc., then fix a broken First-Past-The-Goal-Post political system treat one of the fundamental problems:

Greed corrupts everything it comes in contact with.

Politics, Health, Agriculture, Science, Religion, etc. have all placed profits before people.

--
The greatest thing with America: Capitalism
The worst thing with America: Capitalism

Re:Could someone answer this?

[Wonko the Sane]

It's not the paper itself that grants them their power, but the agreement behind it. If the physical paper the constitution is written on were destroyed, the constitution itself would still be in effect.

Now we're getting somewhere.

If the Supreme Court gets their power from an agreement, who are the parties involved in that agreement?

Spoiler alert: your answer is invalid if it posits that dead people are the source of the power (dead people can't do anything because they are dead), or if it includes people who, if they were all hit by a bus tomorrow, would not reduce the Supreme Court's capacity to enforce their rulings.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[Wonko the Sane]

It is a Token or symbol that the power to govern was given by the will of the people.

People create Governments, not the other way around.

I admit that your religion has a pretty creation myth, but it's got as much to do with reality as a tree stump carving depicting that the sun rises because a giant space coyote eats the sun at night and vomits it up in the morning.

If it was truly the case that governments are formed by "the people", instead of being violently and deceptively imposed by a ruling class onto their subjects, don't you think it's a bit odd that George Washington had to raise an army signifigantly larger than the one used to expell the British in order to neutralize popular resistance to that government's actions?

Re:Could someone answer this?

[KingSkippus]

Good. The exits are clearly marked. Door. Ass. All that shit.

Actually, you're the one who should be going if you don't understand the basic concept that the Supreme Court's job is to interpret how the laws are applied and what they mean, not just in the historical context in which they're written, but in the context of our ever-changing modern society; that laws are meaningless on paper, that only how they're enforced and upheld lends them any power. It's people like you who don't understand that simple concept--in spite of the founding fathers making it explicitly clear that they understood the need for what they were doing to continually be expanded upon and interpreted as times change--that are responsible for a large number of the problems in this country today.

You're the modern-day equivalent of a flat-earther. So yeah, good riddance to you. Or else good luck when you get arrested and try the "my rights are only subject to MY interpretation and I don't recognize this court's authority!" defense.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[The Cat]

The more of this bullshit you shovel, the less sense you make.

According to the text of the Constitution, it is the Supreme Law of the Land: superior to all rulings, precedents, laws and executive actions from any branch of government. Article VI is not subject to context. It's the law. Period.

You are simply opposed to the Constitution, because you view the Supreme Court as a simple expression of autocracy and not one co-equal branch of a limited government.

The only problem in this country is a government that ignores the law. That and people who start sentences with the word "actually."

Re:Could someone answer this?

[The Cat]

If the Supreme Court gets their power from an agreement, who are the parties involved in that agreement?

The states.

By the way, only a towering asshole would argue that anyone invoking the Constitution is appealing to a piece of magic paper.

Enjoy your dumbass literalist handjob.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[Wonko the Sane]

It comes from the will of the majority.

Ok, how do I know this "will of the majority exists?" Can I measure it? Can I talk to the will of the majority to ask what it wants, or do I have to rely on priests^H^H^H^H^H^H^H politicians to interpret it for me and tell me what it is?

Re:Could someone answer this?

[Wonko the Sane]

What's really tragic is that you call me an asshole for telling you that Santa Claus isn't real, Jesus isn't watching you masturbate from heaven, and the Constitution is just a moldy old piece of paper instead of being mad at all the liars and charlatans in the world who infect children with dangerous mythology in the first place.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[UnknownSoldier]

People with power always want to stop other people from gaining their own power. History is choke full of examples, so no I'm not the least bit surprised.

A good ruler / government empowers people, not treats them as slaves, or worse, a source of income that the modern world has degenerated into.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[Wonko the Sane]

And this is why I don't like talking with religious people.

Re:Could someone answer this?

[painandgreed]

I may not be a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the Seventh Amendment trumps the Supreme Court

Nope.

The US Constitution is a very old piece of paper sitting in a museum.

The Supreme Court is a group of people.

A piece of paper is an inanimate object - it can't do anything.

Better to say that the US Constitution means what The Supreme Court says it means. The idea that everybody is working on the same set of rules is what keeps the three branches of government and the millions of people they represent working together.

How soon until...

[consumer_whore]

"I wonder how soon until ISPs' tiered pricing packages will become indistinguishable from those for cable TV, with grouped together services that vary not just in throughput or quality guarantees, but in what sites you can reach at each service level, or which sports teams are subject to a local blackout order. " Pretty quick I imagine, considering how regulatory burden in the US pretty much kills all chances of competition among ISPs.

Re:How soon until...

[anagama]

Regulatory burden? WTF? The only regs Comcast and its ilk adhere to are those that they purchase.

Here's what real regulation would look like -- no ISP may be a content provider of any type, nor can a parent company own both an ISP and a content provider/producer/etc. You can own one or the other, but not both.

The ONLY reason Comcast has a hardon for Netflix is because it is a content provider and Netflix threatens their model.

Re:How soon until...

[Boronx]

Not enough upvotes.

As Lloyd Blankfein said to congress when they asked him if shorting the very securities you were recommending to your clients was a conflict of interest,

"When it comes to making a profit, there is no conflict of interest."

Re:How soon until...

[jythie]

In many people's minds, the government is preventing competition via regulation. They forget that anyone is allowed to start an ISP or even telco any time they want, they just do not get magical access to all that public land for running new lines nor are they entitled to all the free road work that would be required.

Common Carriers

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the FCC should have classified ISPs as Common Carriers a long time ago and given themselves regulatory power over this aspect of these businesses. The FCC chose NOT to give themselves power to regulate ISPs and now we (the customers) are paying the consequences.

netflix, I hardly knew ye

[Anonymous Coward]

You would think that considering how they have been unable to afford enough to get major content providers onboard, that this is also going to effect their bottom line enough to be the last nail in the coffin. There's no way I'm going to pay what comcast thinks is fair on top of current charges, in exchange for looking through loads of crap content, nor am I going to pay as much as a comcast charges to get good content.

I'll stick with the pirate bay, thanks.

Extortion through lack of net neutrality

[carlhaagen]

This is how it starts.

Re:Extortion through lack of net neutrality

[meta-monkey]

My pitchfork is ready. Anybody got torches?

Re:Extortion through lack of net neutrality

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Will oxy-acetylene work?

Does this work two ways?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it is time for Google, Facebook, etc.. start charging Comcast for access to their networks?

What a shame Netflix took a step back on this and what a shame Netflix didn't get any support by the giants of the internet.

Re:Does this work two ways?

[Jason Levine]

Sadly, the reason is this: Netflix has competition. Comcast (for the most part) doesn't.

If Netflix is slow and they blame Comcast, some portion of their subscribers won't believe them and will switch to Amazon Prime, iTunes, or some other video service.
If Netflix is slow and the subscribers see that the blame lies with Comcast, they can protest, but for the most part can't get high speed Internet from any other company.

Comcast knows they have this power over people and won't hesitate to use it.

Re:Does this work two ways?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a shame Netflix didn't fight back by enlisting their subscribers

It's not too late for that. Simply detect when the subscriber is coming from Comcast and start charging an extra $1/mo to cover Comcast's extortion fee and include an explanation of why they're being charged an extra dollar. Netflix passes on the cost to customers and Comcast gets a ton of angry support calls.

But the cynic in me says that Netflix is happy to set this precedent. By agreeing on a price that they can tolerate, it means that any upstart competitor will have to pay it too adding yet another barrier to entry in the streaming content business.

Re:Does this work two ways?

[JoelKatz]

Google and Facebook produce large amounts of outbound bandwidth from a small number of endpoints. Comcast handles large amounts of inbound traffic to a large number of endpoints. The traffic benefits both parties equally, but it is inherent in both Google's and Facebook's business models that their traffic will cost them less than the costs it imposes on the destination networks. Thus it makes sense for Comcast to charge them to balance things out. This argument doesn't work in reverse.

Re:Does this work two ways?

[JoelKatz]

> Why should Netflix hesitate to explain to their subscribers that their ISP is the cause of poor streaming because they refuse to peer with the Netflix network?

They were happy to peer with Netflix, Netflix just didn't want to pay for it. They tried to get Cogent to bully Comcast and that failed. So Netflix agreed to peer with Comcast directly. Settlement-based peering for traffic imbalances has been the norm for more than a decade. Netflix and Cogent just tried to strongarm Comcast and failed.

Re:Does this work two ways?

[bingoUV]

Google and Facebook provide (artificial) intelligence, storage, processing. Comcast doesn't, it is just a conduit. Thus it makes sense for Google and Facebook to charge Comcast. This argument doesn't work in reverse.

fuuuuuuck comcast

[Junior J. Junior III]

I want my network neutrality back. This is the sort of thing that is going to squeeze out the smaller players, or anyone who the backbone operators and ISPs don't want to succeed. It will result in less innovation as startups who can't afford to pony up to the established powers who control the infrastructure won't be able to do business. Prepare for decades of stagnation and no progress as the big players concentrate on consolidating control and only improve things where they absolutely have to, incrementally, with no imagination.

Let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a comcast customer and I currently pay comcast $50 to provide me with internet access. I am also a Netflix customer and I pay them $8 to be able to watch movies.

Now that Netflix will have to pay Comcast I can only assume that this cost will rollover to me. So I will have to pay something like $10.

In other words I will have to pay $2 to Comcast to allow me to access Netflix through the connection which I already pay $50?

WTF??

Re:Let me get this straight

[the_skywise]

No no no... See you're competing with bandwidth for torrenters and pirate scammers who are downloading their movies for free which slows down your streaming so Netflix is paying to give you better service... which will be passed on to you as part of your support to legally enjoy and supports the arts communities.

So y'see, in the end it's actually better for you to pirate the movies for "free" with the Comcast service which will hurt Comcast in the end because they won't get their Two Dollars.

err...

Wait that still makes Comcast the winner... uhhh...

Huh..

Re:Let me get this straight

[thaylin]

Then they should not be offering x amount of bandwidth to users if they cannot handle that capacity. Netflix does not "send" traffic to comcast, comcasts customers "pull" that traffic. If anything Netflix should be charging comcast. Based on your logic every entertainment provider should be paying every ISP, because no ISP sends traffic to the entertainment provider.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Bandwidth is not free. As such, either you want Netflix to free-ride over Comcast investment, or you agree for the asymmetry to be compensated to Comcast.

Comcast isn't free-riding over anyone. Netflix paid for their outbound bandwidth, and Comcast's customers are paying for the inbound. Everyone's getting paid, but Comcast wants to double-dip. In 2005 Ed Whitacre (then CEO of SBC) said of popular service providers:

"Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?"

There was a serious uproar about that, with people rightfully claiming that Ed had no leg to stand on since SBC's customers were already paying for their inbound bandwidth. Exactly what is different now that makes this argument more legitimate?

Re:Let me get this straight

[wiredlogic]

Comcast isn't a peering middleman. They are an ISP serving whatever IP packets their paying customers request. They already get paid to connect their customers to the greater internet. It doesn't matter where Comcast's incoming traffic comes from so long as they provide the service they agreed to in the contract they have with their paying customers. It doesn't matter that a large portion of their inbound traffic comes from one source. If the same volume came from 1000 sources they'd still be obligated to deliver those packets as contracted. That's what IP is all about.

Re:Let me get this straight

[DaHat]

Then they should not be offering x amount of bandwidth to users if they cannot handle that capacity.

I take it then you want banks to keep on hand sufficient cash in case all customers decide to have a run on the bank (a knowable #)... and that road ways should be constructed so wide that they can accommodate at speed every single car that can possibly drive down it at a given time (ie nearly infinitely wide).

No... what Comcast is doing is perfectly reasonable, they offer a an upper limit for how much bandwidth you can get and do their best within reason to accommodate that... and when certain peering links become overwhelmed.

If we go down your road... can you imagine the width of a pipe that Comcast would require to any specific peer? Say you've got a million customers in a given area... each with a 15 megabit connection... under your system you'd need a 15 peta-bit pipe to Netflix... just in case everyone happened to want to watch House of Cards on several TVs in the house at the exact same time.

Re:Let me get this straight

[x0ra]

Netflix pays Cogent, Cogent pays Comcast, at the end Cogent is just a proxy in a dispute between Netflix and Comcast. Nothing really change to the debate we are having here.

Re:Let me get this straight

[thaylin]

I expect that the roads are capable of handling the traffic they claim to be capable of handling, and not charge a bordering state because I chose to go to that state to buy something. In addition you are assuming that netflix uses 15mb per second, and that ever single person is using netflix at the same time, a goss over simplification.

Re:Let me get this straight

[green1]

I have no problem with my ISP "overselling" as long as it doesn't impact the end users. They know that if they have 10,000 customers with 100mbps connections, that doesn't mean they need to be able to provide 1tbps of bandwidth, but just because they used to be able to get away with only having a total of 1gbps and they now need 10gbps to handle the same load is just a cost of doing business. (numbers made up on the spot, and probably not accurate, but the principle still applies) They should be thankful that they don't actually need to provide the 1tbps that would actually be required if people were filling the pipes they sold them.

I would say the ISP has three choices.
1) Admit they can't provide the bandwidth they're selling, and stop selling that level of bandwidth.
2) Realize they can't provide the bandwidth they're selling, and upgrade the network until they can handle the average spikes in said load.
3) Beg netflix to give them a local cache to save them on having to do either 1 or 2
What they should not be doing is getting paid twice for the same bandwidth.

Re:Let me get this straight

[green1]

They should actually be grateful it all comes from one source, it's an incredible opportunity for them to buy local caching from netflix to save on bandwidth. if the same volume came from 1000 sources they'd actually have to upgrade their outgoing links which could prove to be much more expensive.

Or they could act like every other abusive monopoly and try to double dip and get paid twice for the same service... which of course is the option they chose...

Re:Let me get this straight

[petermgreen]

Not really. If anything, the dispute should be between Cogent and Comcast directly, and either can choose to charge their subscribers more.

Or they can choose to leave the link(s) in a shitty congested state. Comcast like's this situation, shitty netflix (and any other internet video providers who happen to be behind cogent) means less competition for their cable TV products*. Cogent don't care much, their buisness is selling cheap connections not high quality ones.

Netflix can choose to respond to this by accepting the shitty congested link, by finding a different upstream provider with a less congested link to comcast (and likely also a higher price) or by cutting out the middleman and making their own deal with comcast. It seems they have chosen the latter.

* Which brings us to the real problem, too much vertical integration meaning the interests of ISPs don't align with the interests of their customers.

Re:Let me get this straight

[kheldan]

Yes. This.
Netflix pays for their connectivity. Comcast also pays for their connectivity. I am of course speaking of connetivity to the backbone. Us users of the Internet, we pay for our connectivity to the entire network. Comcast is big and thinks that they can get paid coming and going. Netflix screwed up, they're now essentially paying Danegeld to Comcast.

A clear message needs to be sent to Comcast that this isn't OK.

Re:Let me get this straight

[log0n]

I'm tired of this 'bandwidth isn't free' point being thrown around. Once the infrastructure is there, it is a fixed cost, essentially free. Traffic to point A is the same as traffic to point B, or no traffic at all. The only reason for different pricing is human nature.

The simplest (indirect) analogy I can think of.. once I have the infrastructure (in this case, cable boxes per TV) I'll pay the same monthly price for my TV bill if I have 10 TVs in my house running channels 24/7 vs a single TV viewing 2 hours 5 days a week. I don't get charged more for more simultaneous TV channels, conversely, I don't get a discount if I happen to leave the TV off the entire month. The signal already exists. It's a fixed cost.

Re:Let me get this straight

[silas_moeckel]

It's worst than that Netflix is more than happy to supply the gear to put a big hunk of there network close to there clients. Comcast gets fast access to what there customers want that's local to their pops. Comcast is unabashedly says we have the eyeballs and you will pay to access them, they also pay us to access you. Comcast's control of the last mile needs to go away. A passive (or pure optical) last mile is needed. One open to all comers at the same price. Ultimately owned by the people that live there and administrated by the municipality. We need 2 cables coming into our houses power and optical fiber. I single strad can serve multiple providers with dirt cheap CDMA gear. Push the smarts back out to the edge It's ok to have a muni net that might link schools, government, local business, and residents with some lifeline internet access. Coupled with dozens of ISP's some using overlay style networks some on there own gear. Given that a company like netflix could piggyback on one or more of those ISP's and/or go direct to the muni net. Protocols will be needed to select the correct one maybe use multiple paths in parallel. Muninets that are fast and responsive to issues can be an attraction to others to migrate to that community.

Re:Let me get this straight

[bhcompy]

Why is this modded Troll? This is completely accurate and has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Netflix wants to be closer to Comcast because Comcast and Cogent have a shitty connection, so Netflix is paying Comcast to add specific connections for them. It's like paying for a Tier 1 colo instead of a Tier 3 colo. Come on people, this is Slashdot

Re:Let me get this straight

[bhcompy]

No, because Cogent has other services that are affected, like League of Legends, who are making their own deals to route around the saturated routes. This is a dispute between Comcast and Cogent.

Re:Let me get this straight

[dryeo]

Well Comcast should just sell different services. $50 and no netflix or $100 and netflix. Or whatever numbers make sense.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Actually, I do RTFA]

In other words I will have to pay $2 to Comcast to allow me to access Netflix through the connection which I already pay $50?

WTF??

At least you're getting what you pay for. I'm going to be paying $2 for Netflix to pay Comcast, and my ISP is neither Comcast nor Time-Warner Cable. Zero benefit for me

Is this quite the same?

[PhrostyMcByte]

This isn't quite the same net neutrality issue here. Netflix isn't paying to stop service degradation or increase priority of their traffic -- they're basically just switching service providers and paying Comcast to host their servers. It may even end up cheaper for Netflix.

Re:Is this quite the same?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Cogent who screwed up.

Re:Is this quite the same?

[TubeSteak]

That is no where near true, and shows you did not read the article.

I think you read the article, but didn't understand what was in front of you.

1. Netflix pays Cogent to be its ISP.
2. Cogent is a Tier 1 ISP, this means that they don't pay for transit or peering bandwidth.
3. Netflix traffic keeps increasing in leaps and bounds.
4. This is a problem for Cogent's peers, because they are receiving more (Netflix) traffic from Cogent than they are sending.
5. Because of 4, Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/TimeWarner have refused to increase peering bandwidth with Cogent unless they get paid for it.
6. Because of 5, all data through those peering points are subject to lag and dropped packets.

The degradation isn't selective, which is why the GP is correct that it isn't a Net Neutrality issue.

Re:Is this quite the same?

[Solandri]

This isn't quite the same net neutrality issue here. Netflix isn't paying to stop service degradation or increase priority of their traffic -- they're basically just switching service providers and paying Comcast to host their servers. It may even end up cheaper for Netflix.

It is the same thing. You're just being confused because of where the zero level lies. The net effect is the same.

In a competitive environment, Netflix has to do nothing to get Comcast to host their servers on Comcast's local network. Comcast would be tripping over themselves to host the servers so their customers would not flee to a competitor which offered better Netflix service. Heck, Comcast would be paying Netflix to provide them with a local copy of their streamed videos.

So in both cases, the net effect is that Comcast makes more money than it should, Netflix pays more money than it should.

Re:Is this quite the same?

[100_Monkeys_Typing]

" Comcast would be tripping over themselves to host the servers so their customers would not flee to a competitor" - Except there isn't anyone to flee too.... Comcast is the only option that I have for accessing high speed internet.

Re:Is this quite the same?

[TubeSteak]

They are degrading one service provider because of netflix, that is the very definition of selective

They are not degrading one service provider.
They are just not increasing the bandwidth available to one service provider, which is not what people mean when they talk about Net Neutrality and "selective"
If Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/TWC picked out Netflix traffic and throttled it, that would be the type of "selective" action we're discussing.

The problem isn't Netflix specifically, it's that the free peering agreements between Cogent and [everyone else] depend on equal amounts of traffic being exchanged.
The only reason Netflix is involved is because they are the ones directly responsible for the significant imbalances in traffic flowing through the peering points.

There are other posts showing previous occasions where Cogent got into fights over peering.
If it'll help you understand the situation better, just imagine that Netflix never existed and that Cogent still had an imbalance in the traffic going through their peering points.

Re:Is this quite the same?

[thaylin]

That is, again, not true. They depend on giving access to content that the customers want. Netflix does not send traffic to comcast, it is pulled by comcasts customers. If it was not for comcasts customers netflix would not be causing the imbalance... So who is at fault, comcast...

Re: Is this quite the same?

[sh3p]

Comcast is refusing to host any CDN servers and instead insisting on a peering agreement.

Re: Re:Is this quite the same?

[sh3p]

One important point is missing, however: why are Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/TimeWarner refusing to host CDN servers for Netflix? That would solve all the peering/traffic issues.

Re:Is this quite the same?

[Nethemas the Great]

for continued smooth access to Comcast's network customers

Sounds like extortion and for that matter a bald faced lie. When the hell did I ever get "smooth" access to Netflix over Crapcast's network?

Re:If netflix is providing content

[0123456]

If netflix is providing content to comcast users, then why is netflix paying comcast?

Because, as I understand it, Netflix is on a different ISP, and traffic from that ISP into Comcast is overwhelminging in the Neftlix to Comcast direction, so the usual peering arrangements based on similar levels of traffic in both directions make no financial sense.

But Rush Limbaugh . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . told me that Net Neutrality means the government is controlling my Internet!

How can this not be true?

Might be a shrewd maneuver...

[the_skywise]

I think this would give the government decent reason to block the Time Warner merger - Lest Comcast become the 21st century version of Standard Oil.

(Or not... if Comcast has enough political leverage with the current administration and with them owning NBC...)

Re:Might be a shrewd maneuver...

[TheSync]

Lest Comcast become the 21st century version of Standard Oil.

I hope so, because in 1865, kerosene cost fifty-eight cents a gallon; by 1880 it was just 9 cents a gallon.

But somehow I doubt that Comcast TWC NBCU will be able to reduce cable prices as much as Standard Oil reduced kerosene prices. After all, Standard Oil did not depend on local government monopoly franchises to achieve their monopoly, but instead only depended on the market.

[Read Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company]

Re:Might be a shrewd maneuver...

[the eric conspiracy]

That's how they destroyed their competition and established a monopoly - predatory pricing. Generally SO engaged in differential pricing - high where there was no competition and low where there was competition. This practice is currently illegal. See Jones, Eliot. The Trust Problem in the United States (1922).

SO also used their market power to engage in other corrupt business practices including forcing rail companies to grant rates not available to other companies.

Re:Might be a shrewd maneuver...

[TheSync]

That's how they destroyed their competition and established a monopoly - predatory pricing.

Yes, they destroyed their competition by dramatically and permanently reducing prices to the consumer. Standard Oil revolutionized the technology of kerosene production and made their supply chain highly efficient. This made a lot of their competitors mad, which is why they got such bad press. But it made lighting incredibly cheap for consumers.

The problem is that there has never been an example of "predatory pricing" where the prices to the consumers go back up to the consumer. It is a nice idea, but practically it never happens.

Re:Long-term loss

[x0ra]

How does streaming 4k HD video fit in the open nature of the internet ? Netflix is merely entertainment, you don't need it to live, even less to survive. Why should Netflix free-ride over ISP investments ?

Brilliant Move

[The Cat]

Now Netflix has incontrovertible proof Comcast has been throttling their service.

Re:Brilliant Move

[matthewv789]

No, not at all, and I'm fairly sure Comcast has not been.

Previously, Netflix had to go through a middleman to get to Comcast (Cogent, as well as Level 3 and others). They already had to pay those middlemen, and the connections they were getting to Comcast were increasingly congested, probably due to transit providers not wanting to pay for peering even if they were sending a lot more traffic in one direction than the other, and thus the other end not wanting to invest in additional infrastructure to handle that increased one-way traffic. This is typical, has been the standard practice for the life of the Internet, and has nothing to do with "Comcast vs Netflix" or "net neutrality" etc. Peering agreements are supposed to assume roughly equal traffic in both directions from both parties, otherwise the one causing the imbalance in traffic is expected to pay.

Now, Netflix are paying Comcast directly to cut out the middleman and get better, less-congested, direct connections. This means they don't have to pay the other transit providers for the traffic they'll now be sending directly to Comcast, AND it seems their payments to Comcast will be less than what they were paying Cogent et al for the same bandwidth.

So for Netflix, this is win-win: they can cut their bandwidth bill AND get better performance and less congestion streaming movies to Comcast customers. What's the problem?

Net neutrality is a real concern, but this particular case is not an example of it.

Re:Brilliant Move

[The Cat]

No, not at all, and I'm fairly sure Comcast has not been.

Unfortunately your theory doesn't match the facts.

Here's the progression:

1. Netflix is slow on Comcast
2. Neflix pay$$$$$$ Comcast to speed up their traffic
3. Netflix is faster on Comcast

Now this could be an elaborate post hoc ergo propter hoc, except that Comcast accepted payment specifically to speed up traffic.

Therefore, proof.

Ctrl-C Ctrl-V

[Dachannien]

OMFG, Timothy, did you really just copy and paste that paragraph without bothering to edit it? You didn't even bother to cut out the stock quotes from the middle of it.

Comcast usually triple dips why is this a surprise

[Crashmarik]

Comcast charges content providers to be on channel line up
Charges the customer to watch them
Overwrites the provided programming with their commercials.

If ever the was an exemplar of a gravy sucking pig comcast is it, and they are the prime exemplar of how crony capitalism is failure.

Re:Long-term loss

[Rougement]

"Why should Netflix free-ride over ISP investments ?" They're not, I'm paying my ISP for internet access. Which sites and services I choose to access is none of their business. Netflix has set a dangerous precedent here.

Robber Barons

[Boronx]

This is just the robber barons of old. The original robber barons where Knights who built castles on the bank of the Rhine river. Any boat traveling the river had to pay or face the cannons of the castle. There was a new castle around every bend of the river, so you can imagine how expensive it was to ship anything up and down the Rhine.

These same folks can be found today in the "Government" checkpoints that you'll find every few miles in certain parts of Africa, or the Thai cop who stops you and asks for a bribe to let you go. Whether or not these Robber Barons are allowed to operate is the deciding factor in whether a society is free and vibrant or is ground down by corruption.

Re:Robber Barons

[TheSync]

Any boat traveling the river had to pay or face the cannons of the castle.

Only the Holy Roman Emperor could authorise the collection of tolls along the Rhine - which is just like local governments granting monopoly cable franchises.

[Technically only those requiring tolls outside the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor were known as robber barons (German: Raubritter).]

Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[x0ra]

I will develop one of my previous comment.

The current one-size-fit-all billing scheme of the internet is utterly broken from my point of view. I do not have choice of the content's quality I watch. I used to watch youtube on a 5Mbps link, now, I do over a 25Mbps link, but I don't really care about watching HD videos, nor do I give a frack about 720p, 1080p video. Ever if I select youtube "I have a slow connection. Never play higher-quality video", I am always getting a better quality video than I need. The current system is utterly UNFAIR to the customer. I want to be able to have a basic access if I WANT TO. When I have no money, I WANT a cheap basic access, if I have more money and can afford better content, then I am free of doing so. The current system, or what is called "net-neutrality", is actually a bad system for customers as it forces the low-bandwidth consumer to pay for high bandwidth consumer who are free-riding on my subscription.

All in all, don't tell me about what you cares about, this is none of my business. You are free to have YOUR needs, I am free to have MINE, but don't make ME pay for your content gluttony

Re:Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The current system is utterly UNFAIR to the customer. I want to be able to have a basic access if I WANT TO. When I have no money, I WANT a cheap basic access, if I have more money and can afford better content, then I am free of doing so.

What are you talking about? The cost or speed of your internet connection has nothing to do with what's going on here. You pay for a connection to The Internet. You don't pay for a connection which gets you to Google quickly, but then only gets you to Netflix slowly or not at all. You pay for the carrier to get your packets to and from any destination on the Network as quickly as it is able to do so.

Unless your on Comcast of course.

Re:Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[x0ra]

My point exactly, I pay for more than I need and this is terribly unfair. See my above hauling truck example. What you call "Internet access" is truly bandwidth and latency. I do not need to be able to stream Netflix 1080p all day long, as such, why should I pay for a pipe capable of doing so ?

Re:Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[x0ra]

Youtube at 5Mbps would actually be quite a luxury, but very few would understand this nowadays.

Re:Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[the eric conspiracy]

Most people have the option of using dialup, wireless, DSL, or one of several tiers of Cable for their internet connection.

Not sure what you are talking about.

Re:Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[x0ra]

I WANT my ISP to treat different traffic differently if at the end of the day, I can get cheaper access. Is it so difficult to understand ? The consumer pays for what he consumes, which is what "fairness" is.

Re:Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[thaylin]

Is it so difficult to understand you will not get cheaper access? No matter what, you will pay more. Eventually it will be to the point that if it is not on comcasts network you will have to pay extra fees for it.

Re:Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[alen]

and at this point comcast lets anyone install a CDN on their network if you pay the fees for the traffic
some companies like netflix are leeches and want to dump a lot of traffic onto others' networks without any sort of agreement or negotiation and expect them to upgrade their networks just so netflix can make all the profits

Re:Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[x0ra]

Obviously not. I could get a $17/month per-month dial up if I chose to, or switch to the $60 cable subscription to a $35 one if I chose to, and bump the 300GB limit I got to unlimited for $5 more.... Oh, yeah, we have data cap here in Canada, certainly something you are not used to, in the country of infinite resources. So, technically, I can already choose whatever suit me the most.

Re:Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[F.Ultra]

How would that help. If you don't use Youtube then you won't get traffic from Youtube so whatever they do won't affect you. That whatever ISP you use don't sell a connection under 25MBps (if that really is the case) has nothing to do with net neutrality, even with the change that you propose you would still be forced to pay the for your 25MBps connection and with the same price.

Re:Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[thaylin]

We have caps as well.

Re:Let the market/customer decide is BOTH way

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

My point exactly, I pay for more than I need and this is terribly unfair. See my above hauling truck example. What you call "Internet access" is truly bandwidth and latency. I do not need to be able to stream Netflix 1080p all day long, as such, why should I pay for a pipe capable of doing so ?

You are confusing the the speed at which data is downloaded, with the ability to download all data at the same speed.

Absolutely you can pay for a slower connection -- and all traffic will be slower for you. You can pay for a faster connection -- and all traffic will be faster for you.

But if you pay for a connection, regardless of its speed, your ISP should send packets to you -- from anywhere -- as fast as your connection allows. There are no balkanised internet subscription packages -- yet. You pay for a 10m/bps connection, you should be able to connect to your email and Netflix both at that speed. Your ISP should not be selectively slowing or denying you access to certain traffic destinations.

Re:Long-term loss

[Qzukk]

How does moving 15Mbps of data across the internet fit in the open nature of the internet?

That's how it fits in the open internet.

Only in the Comcast(tm)-brand Comcastic(tm) Processed Internet Spread does it matter what's in those 15Mbps.

Why should Netflix free-ride

Since you think netflix is getting a free ride, you should have no problem agreeing to pay their bandwidth bill for them, after all it's free! Or are you knowingly lying?

Oh well, the argument is moot. Once AT&T, TWC, and all the other ISPs smell the blood in the water and come for their pound of flesh, Netflix will be done. As a bonus, facebook will probably be next. Followed by Amazon, Google, and everything else that was useful on the internet. Eventually they'll get down to slashdot and each ISP will demand a few million dollars to stop "free riding" on their ISP and we'll be forever free of the scourge of beta.

Re:Long-term loss

[thaylin]

How does netflix have a free ride? The pay for every bit of bandwidth they use, and I pay for ever bit I use watching them. Now explain to me where, when 2 parties are already paying for the sum of the bandwidth, is there a free ride.

Re:If netflix is providing content

[thaylin]

Then comcast should get out of the market. If it does not want me to use my internet how they claim I can use my internet then they should not be provideing me internet.

Re:Long-term loss

[umdesch4]

But weren't the real investments actually taxpayer dollars many years ago when the basic infrastructure of the internet was built? I don't know about in the US, but in Canada, that's what happened. Public pays for building infrastructure, private companies get it handed to them on a silver platter. Companies make huge profits, don't re-invest a dime into maintaining or improving it. Quality diminishes over time, companies get more and more nefarious as their monopoly power increases. The question I have is, why should ISPs free-ride over taxpayer funded investments?

Re:The internet is turning into cable TV

[x0ra]

Guess what ? The "Internet" is more and more used for entertainment, it is normal that those who wants entertainment pay for what they want, instead of free-riding on the back of those who don't want it.

Re:Comcast usually triple dips why is this a surpr

[TheSync]

I wonder if anyone under 50 still uses cable or POTS "phone" service anymore.

I'm under 50, but have a POTS line over cable provider so that when delivery people call us in our apartment we can "buzz them in" the door (would be annoying if they called to our cell phone, but it was on the other side of town or the planet, and we never know which one of us will be home to get the delivery).

Of course no manual shopping any more. It is all Amazon Prime and online grocery delivery.

Thank you Netflix for the long play

[V-similitude]

This is a play by Netflix to demonstrate to the FCC just how dangerous the Comcast/TWC merger would be. Here's hoping they listen.

Re:Thank you Netflix for the long play

[Areyoukiddingme]

This is a play by Netflix to demonstrate to the FCC just how dangerous the Comcast/TWC merger would be.

This is Netflix making the long play to make damn sure no other upstart service arises to displace them or otherwise cut into their market share. They are the $22 billion pound gorilla now and they want to stay that way. They are saying to the FCC, "Net neutrality is unnecessary. The market can take care of it." It's a goddamn lie, but that's how the FCC will view it (with the aid of position papers from the usual suspects).

In short, Netflix broke the Internet, and they're perfectly happy to have done so, because it will now be permanently broken in their favor.

Re:Long-term loss

[Rougement]

Awful analogy. I give my ISP money every month, in return I get bandwidth with which I should be able to do whatever I please. If the ISP is struggling to deliver the advertised bandwidth then that's their problem.

There's a pretty good reason

[SuperKendall]

There's no reason for private companies to profit off the basic requirements of a functioning society.

Actually, there's a really good reason- because government mandated monopolies have ALWAYS been incredibly shittty. Shitty service, shitty customer service, shitty everything.

As SNL once said "We're the phone company. We don't care, we don't have to".

You want to totally kill what tiny competition is allowed in the ISP space by mandating everyone have to go with the cable provider they have? Well that only give Comcast and the like MORE leverage to depend deals like this from anyone you might stream video from.

Cogent is 100% to blame...

[evilviper]

Netflix is having all these problems because they use Cogent, the cut-rate morons of the transit world...

This has happened hundreds of times, long before they carried Netflix streaming video:

http://www.pcworld.com/article...

https://secure.dslreports.com/...

https://secure.dslreports.com/...

https://secure.dslreports.com/...

http://www.complaints.com/2008...

http://publicpolicy.verizon.co...

http://www.prnewswire.com/news...

http://www.fiercetelecom.com/s...

https://www.datacenterknowledg...

etc., etc.

Re:Cogent is 100% to blame...

[zippthorne]

Is Cogent their sole provider? I thought they had a significant portion being served by AWS (which was odd, I thought, because AWS seems to occasionally "go down" when Amazon Prime does not and nobody calls them on it)

Re:Cogent is 100% to blame...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll agree that Cogent is a bottom-of-the-barrel provider, but they're about the only folks that charge less than a buck per 1Mbps on big commits that I've seen. Netflix's bandwidth demands are *enormous*, and given that they've been squeezed so hard by the content providers, I can't really blame them for trying to economize on their bandwidth.

Beta sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

This slashdot-beta is ugly as hell. How do I get rid of this crap?

Internet Tier Packages

[Daetrin]

"with grouped together services that vary not just in throughput or quality guarantees, but in what sites you can reach at each service level"

Someone came up with a nice prediction of things to come along those lines: http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png

History lessons

[holophrastic]

1) fm radio. hardware: free. carrier: free. content: station-driven. advertizers pay radio stations. audience listens to content. summary: free to customers.

2) OTA tvision. hardware: costly. carrier: free. content: channel-driven. advertizers pay tv channels. viewers watch content. summary: one-time hardware cost to customers.

3) cable tvision. hardware: costly. carrier: on-going cost. content: network-driven. advertizers pay tv networks. viewers watch content. summary: customers never stop paying.

4) streaming tvision: hardware: tv set costly + carrier box costly. carrier: on-going cost. content: netflix-driven, on-going cost. advertizers don't exist. netflix pays carriers. summary: customers pay for hardware, carrier service, and netflix service. carriers get money from customers and from netflix.

We've come a long way.

Maybe Netflix is too big for peering agreements

[rundgong]

The no cost peering agreements between the major ISPs is based on the premise that traffic flows both ways in approximately equal amounts.
Netflix is something like 30% of internet traffic and it's mostly one way. They are so big they produce more traffic than many entire ISPs.

They may be so big that no ISP can peer with Netflix's ISP without disturbing this balance.
Is it possible that the solution is that Netflix basically are forced to have multiple ISPs and connect directly to many networks?

I can see that this could lead to problems as has been mentioned elsewhere in this and many other threads, but maybe there have to be exceptions to the general rule.

Re:Maybe Netflix is too big for peering agreements

[alostpacket]

1) it's the ISP's users requesting 30% of the internet traffic, not Netflix. The ISPs aren't peering at all, they are the termination point. They aren't providing a service to Netflix, or to anyone else on the internet for that matter, except their customers.
2) It's the ISPs responsibility to provide enough network infrastructure to their customers. They don't get to hold hostage their users as a product to be bought by Netflix or other content providers.
3) Netflix offers Open Connect CDN

ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network.

https://signup.netflix.com/ope...

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how peering arrangements are supposed to work that is being exploited by the PR departments of ISPs.

Re:Maybe Netflix is too big for peering agreements

[F.Ultra]

AFAIK Netflix kind of already does that by handing out those free Netflix proxy servers to ISPs so that they can serve Netflix to their customers without having to peer with Comgest.

Re:Maybe Netflix is too big for peering agreements

[F.Ultra]

s/Comgest/Cogent

Re:Maybe Netflix is too big for peering agreements

[MobyDisk]

Is it possible that the solution is that Netflix basically are forced to have multiple ISPs and connect directly to many networks?

Yes. The article indirectly confirms it:

Netflix has historically routed its streaming content to broadband providers through a number of Internet middlemen

Netflix probably has servers all over the world, so they would have many many ISPs. Those ISPs may have peering agreements, but Netflix still pays either way.

Re:Maybe Netflix is too big for peering agreements

[JoelKatz]

"The ISPs aren't peering at all, they are the termination point."

Huh? Peering is how traffic is exchanged between termination points. Traffic from Netflix to Comcast customers can reach Comcast's network three ways:

1) Netflix can peer with Comcast.

2) Netflix can be a transit customer of a network that peers with Comcast.

3) Netflix can be a transit customer of Comcast.

1 is what they agreed to now. 2 is what they had before using Cogent's peering with Comcast. 3 is unreasonable given the business nature of Comcast and Netflix.

Better business deal for Netflix

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading the article, the loser here does seem to be Cogent. Netflix will connect directly to Comcast, at a cheaper price than connecting through Cogent, and probably one or two other network providers. They aren't paying for their network traffic to be prioritized over other traffic on Cogent.

Re:This is why...

[x0ra]

You don't need cable... I have been watching streamed feed without a cable connection for years...

Re:Long-term loss

[Rougement]

Ah, so not a paid shill, just an asshole. Got it.

Re:Long-term loss

[davecb]

Paying the godfather for "protection" is often necessary, but one doesn't often announce it publicly, or sign a contract that can be produce in court later (;-))

Cancel Netflix Membership

[ad454]

As a NetFlix streaming subscriber, I will cancel my membership Monday morning.

I don't have Comcast and refuse to pay some of my upcoming Netflix fees to undermine net anti-discrimination (otherwise know as net neutrality).

I was previously happy with and supported Netflix standing up to the Internet monopolies, but now this sets a horrible precedence.

I only hope now that other Netflix subscribers do the same, and cancel their service/subscription, to give the message to other companies that undermining the Internet has consequences.

Re:Cancel Netflix Membership

[matthewv789]

You'd be making a mistake then, because Netflix's total bandwidth bill just went DOWN with this arrangement. They were always paying for the traffic to Comcast (as they pay for traffic to everyone), only now they are paying Comcast less for a direct (and better-performing) connection to their network than they were previously paying Cogent, Level 3, et al for more indirect (and increasingly congested and poor-performing), connections to Comcast's network.

Re:Cancel Netflix Membership

[ad454]

I am upset with the timing and principle of this action, which the news outlets are promoting as a death-nail in net neutrality.

I have visited China enough to know what it is like not to have net neutrality. It is a shame that the country which created the Internet will likely follow the same path.

Here is hoping that government regulators either allow real competition for consumer Internet service, and also list ISP as common carriers. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen, since there isn't any pool of consumer money available to bribe politicians more than they are being bribed with now by the current provider monopolies (like Comcast, AT&T, etc.).

Re:Long-term loss

[x0ra]

What should you have to worry about legality, you paid for the roads through your taxes. Or maybe someone had the insight to think that some use of public road were not acceptable, and thus deemed "illegal". The same way Comcast network was not built to transport Netflix traffic, which, if it was carried who result into unfairness toward other users. There is a nice quote from James Q Wilson, the second part is very relevant here: "Without Liberty, Law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without Law, Liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness". All in all, the problem with libertarianism is that too much people think they can abuse the system. Law is merely here to remind them that every behavior has boundaries.

Stop supporting the monopolies

[Karmashock]

Companies like comcast only exist because no one is allowed to compete with them. Remove the monopoly protection and let them get torn apart by competitors.

Re:Stop supporting the monopolies

[x0ra]

It would seem that people around wants even more regulation, not less :-(

Re:Stop supporting the monopolies

[thaylin]

Less regulation will not help this matter. When MS was a monopoly did no regulation help stop them from their ways?

Re:Stop supporting the monopolies

[x0ra]

MS is still a monopoly with about 90% of the OS market share. As most people having been, and are still being, educated with Windows, regulations are not going to change much about that... So... I'm not sure what your point is... Now, maybe regulation is needed in the super-computer market to allow a "sane" competition, Linux is *way* too powerful in this market, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U..., unless of course you intend to prove G. Orwell being right in saying that some monopoly are more acceptable than other, the same way some animals were more rightful than others...

Re:Stop supporting the monopolies

[Karmashock]

What you don't seem to get is that these monopolies are a PRODUCT of regulation. The government regulation CREATES these monopolies.

Remove SOME of the regulations and we might get some actual competition.

See if Comcast can pull this crap with 5 other companies breathing down their neck.

Re:Long-term loss

[green1]

Which is why you already pay more for a 100mbps connection than you do for a 10mbps connection than you do for a 1mbps connection. If all you do is read plaintext slashdot, you only need the 1mbps connection to do just fine, if you stream HD movies you'll need probably the 10mbps connection, if you want multiple 4KHD streams pay for the 100mbps connection.
Sure the ISPs pay their own upstream costs in terms of what bandwidth they need, but you pay them in a very similar way.

What SHOULD be happening is that the ISPs should be crawling to Netflix hat in hand begging for a local cache to save them on upstream bandwidth, not trying to extort extra money for something they've already been paid for!

Netflix is so so, but once the price get's above..

[Charcharodon]

I wonder how soon until ISPs' tiered pricing packages will become indistinguishable from those for cable TV, with grouped together services that vary not just in throughput or quality guarantees, but in what sites you can reach at each service level, or which sports teams are subject to a local blackout order

At which point I will be cancelling my service and be giving a big double middle finger to which ever douche bag company that thinks they can pull that nonsense with internet service.

Re:If netflix is providing content

[davecb]

When that happens, one side is making a windfall profit, and the other side "negotiate" wit them until they get a deal they can live with. To date, negotiation has tended to start with screaming arguments and run up to service cutoffs, but no-one's stabbed anyone yet (;-))

Re:Long-term loss

[thaylin]

Well thinking Selfishness and greed are good traits is one of the definitions of being an asshole, so he is correct.

Re:This is why...

[x0ra]

I will not mind.

Re:Long-term loss

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The bridge has not been designed to handle that load, it has been designed for lighter load (car, 40' truck, etc.).

But the bridge owner specifically sold me an all-you-can-drive plan where I pay a fixed amount every month and I get unlimited right to drive anything I want on that bridge as many times as I want. If you can't deliver unlimited bandwidth, don't sell it.

Re:Long-term loss

[tepples]

What is your problem with profit ? Or maybe are you just jealous not to have your share "for free". Telcos are private, for-profit, businesses, as long as they keep customer sufficiently happy, there is no need to upgrade.

My problem with profit comes when the city or state government forbids customers who aren't happy with the for-profit telco's service from starting their own co-op to provide a competing service.

Re:Long-term loss

[x0ra]

I very much doubt all contractual details have been made public.

Re:Long-term loss

[thaylin]

Citation please? I dont think those words mean what you think they do.

Re:Netflix is so so, but once the price get's abov

[x0ra]

And the ISP will laugh at you because cash will be flowing in his pocket, and you will be back to the XXth century.

Re:Long-term loss

[R4D4R]

This is completely and utterly wrong. TCP/IP was specifically designed to scale and does so nicely.

Private interests work when they have to compete

[Mystiq]

Can we all agree on this one at least? You don't have to socialize something if there's enough healthy competition. In fact, I would recommend against it because the social agency is under no pressure to provide anything better than basic service based on its funding. I wouldn't call the state of internet service in the US "under healthy competition." My particular area is out of the ordinary because we have Verizon, Cablevision and Time Warner Cable. Of course, let's not forget that the apartment complex I live in has a deal with Cablevision so they're the only choice I really have.

There's little competition with cell phone service. Why? The upstart cost is ridiculous because you have to put wires and towers all over the place and all the big companies bought up the little ones to have more coverage.

There's little competition with internet providers. Why? See above. Add on the fact that content delivery companies are merging with internet providers and now you have to compete with a company that has more money, more lawyers and more weight.

There's little competition with content delivery companies. Actually that's a lie but as ISPs merge with content companies and become bigger, they'll have more weight to push out content delivery startups. I can see Netflix being forced to buy up an ISP like Time Warner if the Comcast deal fails. TimeFlix Warner? (Comflixcast?)

In both the cell service and ISP cases, the trouble I see is lack of regulation and conflict of interest with the companies involved. One company should be the one to lay lines down and build towers for cell companies. AT&T should not be responsible for laying its lines down. Or else, Google could come to areas with Verizon and lease their fiber lines. Line-laying companies would be in competition with one another and want the business of the ISPs and cell companies. Also, I agree that content companies should not be able to merge with internet providers.

Split up line companies from delivery companies and you'll see costs go down because you only have to lease from a company that will have others leasing as well. Split up content companies from ISPs and you'll see Comcast playing nice with Netflix because it'll be one of many content companies its customers will demand access to -- or switch ISPs because they'll have a choice. You take out choice and you take out the only card customers have in determining what fails and what succeeds. If the company holds the cards, they only get bigger, which, as we can see, ultimately leads to regulatory capture. People are greedy and want money. I'm not against the fact that companies exist to make money but when they stop serving the public interests and only their stockholders' because they can then something has to change. If a company doesn't have to compete with anyone else for customers, then they're going to do all they can to raise prices and lower costs without losing too many customers to their non-existent competition.

Case in point: T-Mobile disrupting the cell industry, Apple disrupting the tablet industry and then Microsoft, and Google Fiber disrupting ISPs. (Time Warner increasing speeds to 300 Mbps near Google Fiber not because of Google but because customers [i]there[/i] are demanding higher speeds? Bullshit. I was talking to my ISP once for service and somehow Google Fiber came up. told the tech if they came here I would drop them so fast. He laughed.)

So Comcast bills should go down

[GezusK]

Since Netflix is paying for the bandwidth being used by their customers, that should mean Comcast customers see a reduction in their bills.

Re:Long-term loss

[grcumb]

Bandwidth and latency are neither free or infinite.

Nobody said it was. The issue here is that Comcast subscribers are not getting what they paid for, unless NetFlix pays again for the bandwidth. This is bandwidth for which NetFlix has already paid, and for which Comcast has already been paid by its customers.

Your argument is the same as saying that if you pay for a bridge with your taxes, you should be able to drive a fully loaded hauling truck (type Caterpillar 797F) on it. But guess what ? The bridge has not been designed to handle that load, it has been designed for lighter load (car, 40' truck, etc.).

You're dead wrong on this count. Comcast is arguing (speciously) that traffic to and from a particular destination doesn't deserve the same service as traffic to and from other destinations - unless the destination pays an additional toll. The fact that this is a popular destination is only relevant inasmuch as this increases Comcast's ability to extort payment for something which has already been paid for.

This is straight-up anti-competitive behaviour. If the US telecommunications regulatory environment made any sense at all, Comcast would be slapped down hard for doing this.

Re:The internet is turning into cable TV

[thaylin]

You're right, good thing we already had those who want entertainment paying for it before this....

Re:Long-term loss

[petermgreen]

No sane ISP would agree to provide a guarantee to provide every packet you send to arbitary destinations since it would be impractical for them to provide that service. At best they will provide a gaurantee that it will reach the edge routers of their network without encountering congestion. At worst they will provide no guarantees at all as to what happens once it leaves your link to them and enters the core of their network.

Tempest in a teapot

[matthewv789]

Net neutrality is a real issue, but this is not an example of it, it's just Internet infrastructure working as it always has and as it's intended to.

Previously, Netflix did not have a direct peering arrangement with Comcast, so they paid Cogent and others for transit to Comcast.

Now, they have arranged to directly connect their network to Comcast (which was NOT the case before), and, since they are not supplying the roughly equal traffic in both directions typical of "no-pay" peering agreements, they have agreed to pay Comcast for this arrangement.

What they are paying Comcast for direct peering appears to be LESS than what they were paying Cogent et al previously for transit to Comcast... And they have a more direct, and presumably better performing, set of connections now.

This is a win-win for everyone, and has nothing to do with net neutrality. It's a simple arrangement to implement more direct and lower-cost traffic relaying.

Re: Tempest in a teapot

[sh3p]

Except that Netflix would have preferred to provide Comcast with a CDN server rather than peer with them, and Comcast refused. I wonder why?

Re:Long-term loss

[x0ra]

You are paying for a maximum, best effort, bandwidth, not for a guaranteed one. Re-read your contract.

Re:Long-term loss

[x0ra]

This is called regulatory capture, ie. too much regulation.

Re:Long-term loss

[x0ra]

my own words, in my quest to objectivism.

Re:Netflix is so so, but once the price get's abov

[Areyoukiddingme]

Go ahead. Drop your internet provider. Have fun getting your news because printed news is dieing.

Fuck news. Who the fuck cares about news. Have fun getting your bank statements (my bank charges $1.25 for a paper statement). Have fun renewing your license plates. Have fun finding a dentist (my dentist is still in the Yellow Pages, but for how long?). Have fun getting a job (is it possible to get a technology job without Internet anymore?).

I'm fucked. You're fucked. We're all collectively fucked. Most importantly, THEY (the ISP's) know it.

Yes. Yes we are. The champagne was flowing and backs were being slapped all around, and the hookers were arriving by the busload, and the blow was being sucked up by the pound. We are so very very fucked. Thank you Netflix, you unmitigated shitheads. You broke the fucking Internet. Forever.

Re:Long-term loss

[zippthorne]

If I order the parts for a 797 so I can assemble it in my front yard, they shouldn't be charging Caterpillar for the privilege of delivering me my mining truck parts when I paid for the bridge so that I could get truck parts delivered.

Especially they shouldn't be charging Caterpillar and not charging Komatsu for the same thing.

Re:If netflix is providing content

[dryeo]

No, they should just have honest advertising. "We promise the fastest all text internet" or "100MBs, as long as it's text" or even "Fastest internet, just don't stream content" and of course they should be clear about this when you sign up instead of making promises that they plan to break.

Re:Long-term loss

[F.Ultra]

Because in his view the ISPs should be paid for the bandwidth more than once (what a wonderful model...), sounds like a corporate troll to me.

Could this lead to US loosing control of internet?

[detain]

It seems to me that if the US allows its DataCenters and ISPs to selectivly throttle bandwidth as they please, that the UN could easily use this to force us to give up being home to key internet infrastructure like ICANN, ARIN, etc..

Re:Long-term loss

[thaylin]

I hope you die. Selfishness and greed are what is destroying this country.

Re:The internet is turning into cable TV

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The "Internet" is more and more used for entertainment, it is normal that those who wants entertainment pay for what they want, instead of free-riding on the back of those who don't want it.

They did pay for it. They paid for their ISP to ship that data to them. No-one was free riding on anything here, Netflix included.

Netflix paid THEIR ISP1 to send their data out. Customers pay THEIR ISP2 to ship the data in. Now ISP2 wants Netflix to pay them in addition to ISP1. Why shouldn't ISP1 charge the customers of ISP2 for all the data it has to ship out to them? Oh that's right, that would be too difficult. So let's just extort the largest target instead then.

Re:Long-term loss

[s0nicfreak]

Then let me pay for a guaranteed one!

Even though it is ridiculous that other first-world countries pay $20 for 150mbps and I pay $72 for 25mbps from Comcast, I would pay more to actually guarantee I could use that 25mbps.

Dangerously co-locating servers

[MobyDisk]

This does not sound like a case of Comcast "double dipping" where Comcast gets paid by the customer and by Netflix for bandwidth. And the article makes no implication that Comcast was going to do something non-neutral like slow down Netflix traffic. This looks more like Netflix is co-locating servers inside Comcast's data centers to avoid paying big bandwidth bills to tier 1 network providers.

Upon first reading this article I jumped to the conclusion that Comcast was slowing Netflix traffic and Netflix was paying them for some kind of "priority" service to get their bandwidth back up. But I don't think that is the case.

This is still a dangerous idea. What happens if Netflix decides to just stop supporting Internet streaming, and instead just streams to ISPs who they partner with? Then you will only get Netflix if you subscribe to an ISP that supports them. Sound familiar? It's basicall the Cable TV networks all over again.

Re:Long-term loss

[jythie]

Netflix pays its upstream provider. That provider pays Comcast, but Comcast and other backbones have gotten good at negotiating between each other, so Comcast can not squeeze Netflix's ISP much more. But Netflix HAS been paying for its load on Comcast's network the entire time. There is no 'free ride' here, everyone has been getting paid already. But Comcast's interest is not just in getting paid, it is in protecting its unrelated media offerings. Netflix is cutting into its cable TV profits so they are trying to make up for THAT loss, not increased network usage.

Re:Long-term loss

[jythie]

Customers are not forbidden from starting their own ISP. However they do not get free roadwork nor access to the untold miles of public land. Bringing in a new set of lines is a massive and expensive undertaking that has significant impact on the entire region including not only power and traffic disruption but requires tearing up right of way land, which means going onto citizen's property and ripping it up. So yeah, local governments have a pretty significant incentive to not go through that whole process anytime someone asks.

Re:Long-term loss

[jythie]

Yeah, people tend to underestimate just how much public money goes into internet infrastructure even when companies make it look like they are only spending their own money to lay cable.... people also tend to forget that all those cables are being put on land that the telco does not own and would have no right to if the public did not hand it over.

Nextflix "plus shipping and handling?"

[davidwr]

Media providers may start charging "ISP shipping and handling surcharges" to cover their actual costs (plus a "small" markup of course!) to customers of ISPs who insist on charging peering fees.

The alternative is to spread this cost across all customers (like most manufacturers do now), effectively having the customers who have ISPs with free peering subsidize the costs of those who don't.

Personally, I think "last-mile connectivity" and "wireless connectivity" should be billed on a per-unit-cost basis with some minimum monthly charge to cover "paperwork." ($X/GB for data, Y cents (or tenths of a cent) per minute per "classic" cell-phone call, Z cents (or tenths or hundredths of a a cent) per "classic" text, etc.) then allow multiple service providers (e.g. back-haul TCP/IP-data-providers, "classic" phone/text providers, specialized data providers like VoIP, latency-sensitive streaming service providers, etc.) to provide services up to the "neighborhood box" or the "provider-interface box closest to the cell tower" etc.

This way, if I wanted to get VoIP from Comcast, regular internet from Time Warner, and television services from AT&T, all over my local cell tower, I could. I'd pay basic connectivity-fees to the company that ran the tower and pay service-bills to the other companies. They wouldn't pay the tower owner anything, or if they did, it would be at a regulated fee designed to cover costs, not provide a profit to the tower owner. I'm the tower-owner's customer, not the data providers.

Since both I and Netflix am paying

[PortHaven]

Does this mean I get to take a baseball bat to Comcast's CEO's head if I am still unable to stream Netflix in 3D?

Cause I'm !@#$% sick of this...

Corporatocracy

[nbritton]

and what makes you think the corporations wouldn't employ their own militia in the absence of that govt protection?

Umm, Robocop?

City should lay conduit and let telco pull PHY

[tepples]

Then perhaps the right way to avoid inefficient telecom monopolies is for the city to tear up the roads once to lay conduit next to the water mains. Then any telecom service provider can pull its copper or fiber through this conduit, as I've explained.

Can't Believe Comments Here Are As Bad As Reddit

[BondGamer]

Netflix does now pay Comcast $99.99/month for internet access like consumers do. They have to pay for their uplinks like all major websites do. So Netflix goes to the dirt cheapest ISP which is Cognet. Why is Cognet the cheapest? Because they skimp on their connections. So while Cognet sells Netflix all the uplinks they need, Cognet does not have adequate link agreements with Comcast/Verizon/etc. A dumbed down example would be Cognet is trying to push 1GB per second through 500MB per second connections. Packets get dropped.

The whole internet is playing right into the hands of Netflix who is trying to act like a victim. They wanted to try and pay the least, so they setup this whole scheme about throttling when the one who is actually the bad guy here is Cognet for selling service they can''t provide. They are basically acting like a webhost who sticks 10,000 website on one server.

and I thought the Comcast TWC merger was bad

[Wansu]

Just when I didn't think it could get much worse, it did.

This is good news

[TonyXL]

This will spur development of more broadband to people's homes as there is now a double demand for broadband. Google Fiber would then offer a better price to Netflix, and a price war would occur.

Brave "New" World?

[AutodidactLabrat]

I believe this is the beginning of the end of the internet.
With the costs of maintaining the infrastructure borne entirely on the taxpayers back, IE via university and TheGreatMonopolyTelecomProvider routing and cabling, satellites and microwave links, the profits diverging into the hands of the "last mile" providers leads us inevitably back to the old Broadcast Profit mechanism, where maximum stupidity reigns supreme and no one can defy the Network conglomerates.
Wait for it, we will all be stuck with Lucy reruns forever within 10 years.
Goodbye, sweet internet, home of the ultimate library, entertainment center, teaching tool.

Oh brave new world, that hath no place for me in't (with apologies to William Shakespere)

Re:Regulation has a cost associated with it too

[Nethemas the Great]

Ok, how about this. Select a handful of countries with nice pipes and emulate what they did to get to where they are.

USPS

[phorm]

When I order from the USA (to Canada), I go with USPS/Canada-Post because they're the only ones that don't bend me over with exorbitant duties, for which UPS/Fedex/Loomix sometimes charge 20% or more of the actual item cost.

Secret deal? Let me guess...

[OurDailyFred]

Netflix will place whatever sized server is required in ISP's rack, eliminating the need for multiple streams being sent from Netflix to the ISP. Netflix pays for the server, and may also pay a negotiated space for the racks pace and power. This means the ISP does not have to pay for much of anything for carrying Neflix feeds. As well, the server is updated overnight by Netflix based upon projections of what customers will want. This may well be what those negotiations are, and Netflix may have agreed to pay rent for the server space and power or something like that so that boh sides save face, customers are happy, and the ISPs continue to keep their reputation and the evil bastards they are. Of course, apologies to all fine people who may have been born out of wedlock.

F.

I wish

[fluffythdestroy]

Since Netflix bented and gave vasoline to Comcast, i wish Google an Facebook would do it JUST CAUSE THEY CAN. It would show that you need 2 player to play this game. That way, when its going to be ridiculous, maybe an organisation or the gov could step in and create laws about this.

Five Weeks

[organgtool]

So five weeks is how long it takes for ISPs to finish celebrating their court-ordered victory over network neutrality and then extorting content providers into higher fees under the threat of purposely degrading their own users' connections to that content provider. And just think of how much money Comcast will get the next time they extort Netflix once they own all of Time Warner's customers.

The FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, promised to uphold network neutrality by reclassifying ISPs as common carriers on a "case-by-case" basis if they misbehaved. Well, Mr. Wheeler, I can't think of a bigger misbehavior than this. So do what you promised or publicly admit you were simply making empty promises.

Re:Five Weeks

[cboslin]

Excellent observation!

I want FTTH so bad, to have symmetrical bandwidth, the same upstream as downstream (10Mb/10Mb, 100Mb/100Mb, 1Gb/1Gb) and never bothered by the Cable Company poor scarcity myth laden throttling business models, now there is a thought worthy of every freedom loving American. Especially those that want to encourage small business economic activities and jobs.

For those lucky enough to be looking, here are almost 25 communities that have symmetrical FTTH!

The solution is to not to use the Cable company's last mile segments...in other words, don't purchase a house that does not have either DSL or FTTH.

Why DSL, glad you asked, the lower bandwidth of DSL (2Mb/756Kb) is way superior to a throttled (300Kb/40Kb) cable internet connection. That 300Kb/40Kb was what my dd-WRT firmware enabled router showed that the cable provider was allowing me to have. I was paying for 20Mb/2Mb, even paid $10 extra for additional burst bandwidth, you guessed it, they still throttled at 300Kb/40Kb or lower. I fully understand from first hand experience why most of us hate cable internet providers.

That's fine...

[PortHaven]

But if they don't deliver the speed. My bill should be dropped down to the corresponding lower rate.

BS

[PortHaven]

The costs get passed anyways. Regulation can a) limit the amount charged, and b) ensure that when those costs get passed - so do some bloody benefits.

WRONG

[PortHaven]

I pay Comcast for 50mbps....

I have paid for a 50mbps bridge, and cannot carry a 6mbps load I need to move Netflix....

So excuse me......Yes, Comcast are the issue.

Best effort...

[PortHaven]

That's right....and Comcast sure as !@#$% ain't putting in a best effort.

Second, if I can't even get enough for a 6mbps feed on my 50mbps service, I'm barely getting over 10% of my rate. That's not best effort.

So excuse me if I tell any Comcast defenders...

FUCK YOU
FUCK YOU
FUCK YOU
FUCK YOU

My problem with profit...

[PortHaven]

My problem with profit is when the profit...

- far exceeds your costs for the product you are delivering
- is protected by government granted monopolies
- is made by a company receiving millions in tax subsidies
- is made by violating regulations and paying off politicians to avoid penalties
- is made by making illegal non-compete deals with your rival Verizon, so you can both charge excessive rates.

Re:Long-term loss

[PortHaven]

The issue is, that WE understand that our bandwidth cannot be guaranteed at ALL TIMES. We understand, that weather, network problems, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Can impede bandwidth.

As such, we allow, and accept a reasonable indemification against a 100% uptime and guaranteed speed deliveries. The problem is, that that allowance has and is being abused to justify providing a less than agreed to performance. More so, that the performance is deterministic based upon content.

In otherwords, if I go to Speedtest.net, Comcast will allow me to have 100% or MORE of my purchased 50mbps bandwidth. But....if I go to Netflix, bittorrent, or any site that may compete with their alternative business offerings. My bandwidth is reduced significantly.

And that is FRAUDULENT AND CRIMINAL and we are fully justified in being pissed off as hell.

your 7th point

[globaljustin]

Nice work TubeSteak...you nailed it up until this:

The degradation isn't selective, which is why the GP is correct that it isn't a Net Neutrality issue.

This isn't a Common Carriage issue.

It is definitely a Net Neutrality issue. Comcase/Verizon/ATT are trying to make artifiical scarcity targeted at one company: Netflix.

That's a net neutrality issue...Cogent's role as ISP is relevant but only in that it adds a link in the chain...it's still Comcast being a bullshit evil company that thinks it has some kind of capitialist-god granted right to a monopoly

Re:Long-term loss

[x0ra]

Selfishness and greed are the very reason this country exist in the first place.

Re:Long-term loss

[Rakarra]

Well thinking Selfishness and greed are good traits is one of the definitions of being an asshole, so he is correct.

They're also traits of an Ayn Rand - worshipping Objectivist.