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

[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

[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.

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

[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?

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]

"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.

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.

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: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.

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: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?