Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix Blinks, Will Pay Comcast For Network Access

Posted by timothy on from the who-pays-whom-for-what dept.

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.

76 of 520 comments (clear)

  1. If Comcast were Exxon by DulcetTone · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Why do people accept this?

    --
    tone
    1. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by x0ra · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    3. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by FuzzNugget · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Zynder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some people actually believe everything you wrote.

    7. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      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).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Immerman · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      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.

    13. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    14. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 2

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

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

    15. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by alostpacket · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
    16. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by leonardluen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      I believe you!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    19. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by gregor-e · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    20. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by InvalidError · · Score: 2

      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.

    22. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Camael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    23. Re:If Comcast were Exxon by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  2. Oh shit by Enry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well there goes the Internet

    1. Re:Oh shit by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  3. Not long by mbone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Not long by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    2. Re:Not long by thaylin · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    3. Re:Not long by thaylin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    4. Re:Not long by thaylin · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    5. Re:Not long by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:Not long by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    7. Re:Not long by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      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.

    8. Re:Not long by rk · · Score: 2

      You've never managed a network, have you?

    9. Re:Not long by lordofthechia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
  4. Internet access should be a socialized service by mozumder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Internet access should be a socialized service by Boronx · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Play Command HQ online
    2. Re:Internet access should be a socialized service by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Internet access should be a socialized service by Boronx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      Play Command HQ online
    4. Re:Internet access should be a socialized service by visualight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " 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.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
  5. Could someone answer this? by Nyall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    --
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    1. Re:Could someone answer this? by khasim · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Could someone answer this? by locutus2k · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:Could someone answer this? by cdecoro · · Score: 2

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

      Illegal

      Nope.

    4. Re:Could someone answer this? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Could someone answer this? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Could someone answer this? by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2

      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.

  6. Common Carriers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Extortion through lack of net neutrality by carlhaagen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is how it starts.

  8. Does this work two ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Does this work two ways? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Does this work two ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  9. Re:How soon until... by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  10. Is this quite the same? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Is this quite the same? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's Cogent who screwed up.

    2. Re:Is this quite the same? by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Is this quite the same? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  11. Brilliant Move by The+Cat · · Score: 2

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

    1. Re:Brilliant Move by matthewv789 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  12. Re:How soon until... by Boronx · · Score: 2

    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."

    --
    Play Command HQ online
  13. Re:Long-term loss by Rougement · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  14. Re:Long-term loss by Qzukk · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  15. Re:Long-term loss by thaylin · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  16. Re:If netflix is providing content by thaylin · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  17. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  18. Thank you Netflix for the long play by V-similitude · · Score: 2

    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.

  19. Re:Long-term loss by Rougement · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  20. Cogent is 100% to blame... by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  21. Internet Tier Packages by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Funny

    "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

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  22. Maybe Netflix is too big for peering agreements by rundgong · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  23. Re:Might be a shrewd maneuver... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    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.

  24. Stop supporting the monopolies by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  25. Re:Let me get this straight by green1 · · Score: 2

    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.

  26. Tempest in a teapot by matthewv789 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  27. Re:Let me get this straight by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.