Netflix Trash-Talks Verizon's Network; Verizon Threatens To Sue

jfruh (300774) writes "If you're a Verizon broadband customer and you've tried streaming Netflix over the past few days, you might've seen a message telling you that the "Verizon network is crowded" and that your stream is being modified as a result. Verizon isn't taking this lying down, saying that there's no proof Verizon is responsible for Netflix's issues, and is threatening to sue over the warnings."

Comments

We are being bred for slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.

They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.

They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[i kan reed]

True or false, that has very little to do with debate between two companies, one of whom has only the role of delivering passive entertainment.

If we're losing a middle class, there's probably more blame to be laid on our own watching of netflix marathons than this particular dispute over net neutrality. That isn't to say the dispute isn't important, but this is not where revolutionaries need to be laying their cards.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

I am here to chew bubblegum and kick ass.

And I can't afford bubblegum.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

This has everything to do with these corporations. These corporations (and the government) are the one's enslaving us

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[LordLimecat]

Wrong.
Just a sample of median income over time,, race, etc (in 2004 dollars) (source):

1950 -- White men: $18000; White women: $ 7000; Black men: $ 9775; Black women: $ 3150
1980 -- White men: $28939; White women: $10741; Black men: $17390; Black women: $ 9944
2004 -- White men: $31335; White women: $17648; Black men: $22740; Black women: $18379

Not only has (inflation adjusted) median-- not mean! -- income risen, it looks to my casual eye like the disparity has massively dropped. It went from a 3:1 ratio for black men to women to 1.25:1; between blacks and whites it went from ~2:1 to ~1.5:1.

If you were to look at education over the past 100 years you would see the same trend. Im not sure where people are getting these "facts" about the dismantled middle class but theyre terribly wrong. All of this talk about class warfare can only be made by one completely oblivious to reality and history.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

2004-2014 ?
A lot has happened in the last decade....

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

tahts great and all, but you ned to look at the class divisions not the mean income accross the board. you need to look at where the cutoff bwtween middle class and upperclass are taking place and how that shift has widened. yes the Middleclass has moved up but not near as fast as the upperclass.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[VTBlue]

The flaw in your reason is is that inflation adjusted median income growth is a poor measure for purchasing power. You have adjust the median income growth with the expenditures side to get Purchasing Power Parity. Today, middle income people are feel poorer and are poorer than their 1950s 60s counterpart.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this talk about class warfare can only be made by one completely oblivious to reality and history.

The only part of your entire post that was worth anything.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Bengie]

Im not sure where people are getting these "facts" about the dismantled middle class but theyre terribly wrong

$18k was middle class black in 1950, but once you adjust for inflation, that means in 2004, they should be making about $54k assuming a low 2% inflation, but they're only making $31k. So the median white man when from middle class in 1950 to "lower class" in 2004. The other demographics have gone up, and that's great, but we have fewer middle class.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the "in 2004 dollars" part of the GPs post. In 1950s dollars, median income was below $5000.

Now, with income disparity increasing the middle class may well feel like they're worse off, but they really aren't. They are, however, relatively further behind the wealthiest.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Rockoon]

$18k was middle class black in 1950, but once you adjust for inflation, that means in 2004, they should be making about $54k assuming a low 2% inflation,

Is your bias so thick that you didnt even bother to see if the number was already inflation adjusted? ..or are you so uneducated that you think $18K was a middle class income in the 1950's? Which is it? Disingenuous bias or tragic ignorance?

The unadjusted figure for white males for the 1950's is $2,709

..but here you are, claiming that it was $18K before adjusting for inflation... disingenuous? ignorance? both?

There is a reason that "the right" is doing better financially, and its not because they are holding you down. You are holding yourself down by not giving a fuck about things like facts.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Dishevel]

They are being enslaved willingly. So I do not care for them at all. If people want to give up their freedoms so they can be lazy and feels safe then fine. I just want these lazy pussies to stop trying to give away my freedoms and responsibilities.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Dishevel]

Yes I am doing better. But I saw some other guy doing even better than me! Fuck you give me more free shit!

Bleeding hear dipshits. You do not even see how fucking horrible your statement was.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Dishevel]

It is horrible to be poor. Only 2 cars and having to choose between the PS4 and the Xbone to hook up to your 47" LCD.

How dare we make them choose!

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[robbyb20]

I guess you could also look at this way.

Yes, i am doing better. But i saw some other guy doing worse than me! Fuck you, give me more of your money. Not like you have any other choice anyway, so you may as well just bend over while i rape you with my increased prices.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Dishevel]

The entitlement that some people feel is amazing. It does not matter that they have a car and a flat screen and video games. That they never have to starve. Food is given out for free. Life is easier for the "poor" than it has ever been. They still want to bitch because some people have it better than them. And because they feel that way. That things must be given to them to make them more equal they can never succeed.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Shadow99_1]

lol, I wish that was the issues of being poor in the US...

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Bengie]

I r blind. Thank you my good sir.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Bengie]

"ignorance" it is! Really, it is.. sorry. Thanks for the correction.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[lgw]

Furthermore, one can buy partial ownership of these corporations for money. If corporations control everything, just buy your fair share (1/300,000,000th) of all US corps and you've got your proportional vote (and that's only like $50k).

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Rockoon]

Im not sure where people are getting these "facts" about the dismantled middle class but theyre terribly wrong. All of this talk about class warfare can only be made by one completely oblivious to reality and history.

Its far worse than just not knowing the facts - they get simple reasoning wrong too. For instance they think that if say 90% of people were only making 0.001% of the money, that 90% of the people would be doing badly. It is the "inequality" that leads them to this hair-brained completely illogical conclusion. If 9 out of 10 people made $10 per day, then $10 per day would buy a lot of goods and especially services (do they really think that the top 10% provide services?) This is obviously so if you take currency out of the equation and reduce your arguments to a pure barter system instead of economy by proxy. If I could trade 8 hours of my labor for 8 hours of yours on simple barter, than whatever amount of money we make as a proxy to avoid direct barter is irrelevant.

This is convincing proof that the people people that complain about "income inequality" really and truly are completely ignorant about economics. They've been told before that the measure of wealth is the goods and services that you can enjoy and not the specific number of currency units you command, but it simply doesnt sink in. They keep talking about the "inequality" rather than anyones wealth. If they had to actually talk about wealth, they would have to admit that most folks are doing really well compared to pretty much any other point in history, be it 20 years ago or 50 years ago.

They think things must have been "better" in the past because... what? There are some likely outlying culprits as to why its so easy for these ignorant twats to convince themselves.. such as the price of a house, or of an education, but explain to them how government has fucked up both markets greatly distorting prices upwards to completely irrational levels, well they simply dont want to accept it. Those programs that fucked up those markets have good intentions, so instead it must be some 1%'re conspiracy against the populous.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[shaitand]

It's not so much whether or not the median has risen as the huge gap between the mean and the median that tells you about the middle class. The median is a better indicator of what people do make, the median is an indicator of what they should make.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[ganjadude]

when people talk about "the poor" in america, thats usually who they are not talking about. Rarely do we ever talk about the truely poor in this country unfortunately

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[shaitand]

Do you actually own your home? How about your car? You and not the bank likely owned them in the 50's and that is with a single income family.

You don't just have to factor for inflation, you also have to factor out manufacturing efficiency increases. A toaster today does not equate to the same value as a toaster in the 50's. A toaster in the 50's represents more labor and natural resources than a toaster today. A toaster today probably costs $10 but to buy something with an equivalent amount of resources as a 1950's toaster is going to cost at least $100-$200 today.

There is a form of hidden inflation where the reduced purchasing power of citizens in the western world is hidden by improving manufacturing efficiencies and reducing the quality of goods and services.

So while you might have two cars in the garage with your dual income and both mostly owned by the bank, your 1950's single income family counterpart's purchasing power would have them owning at least 4 or 5 modern cars.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[GameMaster]

Not that this has anything to do with the actual topic of this story, but I don't think that's an accurate description of the situation. We're not being bred for slavery because (even if they were morally willing to) the ruling class no longer has a need for slaves in the long-term (the only time-frame that a "breeding program" would actually be useful). Automation will be the new "slavery" without all the nagging ethical issues of real slavery. It will leave only the most "interesting" jobs remaining (before strong AI, if it's actually possible, replaces even those jobs) which the small portion of the population comprising the ruling class will be able to perform as hobbies to feed their intellectual curiosity/egos.

If anything, we are being obsoleted and the present struggle is between those of the ruling classes that have ethics/morals and those that don't over what to do with the excess of humans that will soon no longer be needed. The ones with ethics/morals will push for more socialization, education, and birth control adoption while the ones without morals/ethics will be more inclined to focus all excess resources/energy towards personal profits and ego driven vanity projects while letting the masses starve. They'll push for the use of highly automated police/military forces to put down any civil/political unrest.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[HiThere]

You can buy partial ownership, but you can't buy partial control. Groups of people can buy partial control, but it takes large groups, and they have to act through delegated representatives....who generally figure that anything that produces more money must be good. (There are specialized funds with different values, but few of them are available as, say, retirement investments.)

If you don't have control of 5% of the stock, you very rarely have ANY influence over policy. Occasionally a decision will be close enough that a smaller block will become important, but not often. Usually if a choice is that contested, it will be deferred.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Dishevel]

You are still bitching about the wrong thing. You play with what ever terms make you feel good about hating people with more than you.

You throw aside the fact that the poor peoples lives are easier and better with statements about "improving manufacturing efficiencies". Like that means nothing.

You can not get it past your need to hate the rich that their investments into increasing their wealth are what made the "improving manufacturing efficiencies". Just because they got more out of it than the little guy in no way allows you to just throw out the very real improvements in their lives.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[shaitand]

That assessment fails to account for purchasing power. Inflation does not accurately reflect purchasing power because of manufacturing and technology improvements (and quality reduction) since the 1950s. It also fails to account that the 2004 values are household vs household. In the 1950's households were generally single income whereas the majority of households are dual income now so having an equal income means getting half as much income per hour of labor worked.

So households now are contributing twice as many units of labor to society and able to purchase fewer total units of labor and natural resources vs the 50's. Where is all that labor going? Mostly to produce the excess valued consumed and stored by the top 1%.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[pnutjam]

Wish I lived in your world...

But wait, you were poor once... you think...

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[LordLimecat]

A 1950's TV would cost ~$495 in 1950 dollars, which is ~$5,000 in 2014 dollars. It would be 21", low resolution, not capable of HD, use a ton of electricity, and eventually the phosphors would give out causing it to have wierd colors. In 2014 you can get a 52" TV for $600.

Hows that for "hidden inflation"?

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[LordLimecat]

Except that half of my post was demonstrating a DECREASING disparity.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[LordLimecat]

Median incomes listed are per person, not per household-- hence the inclusion of gender data.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[HiThere]

It's not even that simple. Some things have gotten cheaper, others have gotten MUCH more expensive. Housing has gotten more expensive much faster than inflation, though there are arguments that it's quality has improved. (I don't accept them, by the way. My grandfather's very cheap house was better than an expensie modern house. For one thing, it was a lot more durable.) People are coerced into buying condominiums or trailers because the price of land makes simple ownership insupportable.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Dcnjoe60]

If you were to look at education over the past 100 years you would see the same trend. Im not sure where people are getting these "facts" about the dismantled middle class but theyre terribly wrong. All of this talk about class warfare can only be made by one completely oblivious to reality and history.

Maybe the problem is you are looking at the wrong thing. Average income isn't what defines middle class. The change in average CPI from 2004 to 2013 is 23.32% That would mean the 2004 numbers if they kept up with inflation would be white men $38,642, White women $21,764, Black men $28,043 and Black women $22,665. Do you really think somebody making those amounts in 2014 is middle class?

No, to determine what is happening to the middle class you to look at the number of people in lower, middle and upper class income ranges. If you do that, you will find that the middle class has shrunk and the lower class has increased. It's a serious issue because historically, how the middle class went, is how the economy went as most of the purchasing power was concentrated there.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[shaitand]

"If I could trade 8 hours of my labor for 8 hours of yours on simple barter, than whatever amount of money we make as a proxy to avoid direct barter is irrelevant."

But you can't. I can trade 8hrs of my labor for the output of 3 of your hours. We each give 5 hours worth of every 8 hours we work to a "passive investor" aka someone who is leeching from the system without contributing labor of their own or who is contributing labor but each hour of their labor get traded for 10's, 100's, 1000's, or millions of hours worth of other people's labor.

The proxy system is very relevant because it abstracts this in such a way that people can't see what a lousy trade that is.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[517714]

Median income isn't a particularly relevant measure. If the incomes are now flatter below the median, that would indicate fewer people are being excluded from the middle (I'm pretty sure that's not the case except at the lowest incomes), if the incomes are steeper above the median it means that there is more wealth in the hands of more people (again, I am sure this is not the case except at the highest incomes). Show me the 10th, 25th, 75th and 90th percentile incomes and then we'll talk.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[LordLimecat]

WHO CARES about the "1%"??? The system we have is pulling everyone up at a phenomenal range; if some people make a lot of money doing so, who, really, needs to care about that?

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[HiThere]

There *is* income inequality, and it *has* gotten worse. I will agree that the ways of measuring it are jiggered, but I don't have a simple way that's inclusive. You could consider how much living space each person controlled as a proxy, but it's clearly incomplete. And you actually CAN'T reduce current economy to a pure barter equivalent. I'm not sure it could be done in principle, but I'm quite clear that it can't be done in practice. You can only reduce simplified slices of it to such a system.

One example of this is the problem of how much (non-reimbursed) of each year do you work to support the government? I've heard arguments that have put the date in June or July, but they aren't counting reimbursal of services, like road maintenance, radio spectrum allocation, etc. And you can't get agreement about this because people differ as to what they consider reimbursal. A thief doesn't consider governmental theft prevention efforts to be to his advantage...unless he's devised ways to work around them. A bicycleist doesn't consider enabling cars to go faster to be advantageous. Etc. (Yes, I'm picking oversimplified outlier cases. The problem, however, is deep. E.g. people change their opinions about what is "reimbursement" depending on what's happend recently.)

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[guises]

There is a reason that "the right" is doing better financially, and its not because they are holding you down. You are holding yourself down by not giving a fuck about things like facts.

It's sad to see someone criticizing another for bias and then throwing something like this out. No one said anything about "the right," and if you're going to throw out a claim like that you should back it up with something.

If "the right" means Republicans, as it usually does in the US, I've seen nothing but poor financial decisions out of them in the few decades that I've been paying attention. I would not say that they're doing better financially. (better than who? "the left"? the middle class, as the grandparent was discussing?)

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[lgw]

Prices for everything one needs to live are lower than ever. Subsistence food was over half of family budgets 100 years ago.

Meanwhile, if you're well off and not giving to charity, you're a total dick, that's an inescapable fact. But individual assholes aside, collectively the well-off in America give quite a bit to help the needy.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[WinstonWolfIT]

Astute. The pool of available liquid currency precisely buys the pool of available commodities. Like tic tac toe, the only way to win this game is to not play it, but perceived happiness is devilish when your next door neighbor has a nicer car than you do.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[LordLimecat]

Lets see what has to say about that.

Excerpts:
In 2000, 2-in-3 householders in the United States owned their own homes; in 1900, less than half owned their homes.
Nationwide rate -- 1950: 55.0%; 1970: 62.9%; 1990: 64.2%; 2000: 66.2%

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[lgw]

You can buy partial ownership, but you can't buy partial control. Groups of people can buy partial control, but it takes large groups, and they have to act through delegated representatives

So, no worse than democracy then? Since it's a (representative) democracy of shareholders, it's of course going to have all the flaws of democracy. 1/300,000,000th piece of control isn't much, after all, but it's each of our fair share.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Cro Magnon]

It seems to me that the luxuries are cheaper, but the necessities are more expensive. My TV, computer, and other toys might be less, but my gas, groceries, medical care, and housing are going up like rockets.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[shaitand]

I think you'll find that the census incorrectly considers those with mortgages to be homeowners. The bank owns those homes.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[shaitand]

Given the rampant unemployment I'd contend the system is definitely not pulling everyone up at a phenomenal range.

The cut the 1% get isn't just numbers on a page, it translates into actual labor that is contributed by the middle class. The output of MOST of that labor is going to the 1%. The other 99% could be enjoying far more of the benefits of our collective labor if it weren't being leeched on by 1% of the population.

Actually, I'm not even concerned about the 1%. I'm concerned about the .001%.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[shaitand]

"It would be 21", low resolution, not capable of HD, use a ton of electricity, and eventually the phosphors would give out causing it to have wierd colors."

Yeah in 10 years vs the 2 years you can expect a modern TV to last but that is a different issue.

The point being the screen size, lower cost, improved resolution, power savings, etc ARE NOT improvements in the economy. In the 1950's a middle class home could have that $5000 TV. In 2014, someone earning the median $30k/yr income CANNOT afford a $5000 TV.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[VeriTea]

Your 1950's car would struggle to sell for $500 today - it is unsafe, unreliable, un-air-conditioned, inefficient, and undesirable compared to even a high-mileage poor condition used car now.

Oh, and that 'single family income' was generally only available to white males not from southern Europe or Ireland . Black? Single Mom? You worked as a cook in someone's kitchen and lived in a hut with no plumbing. It is amazing what standard of living you can claim if you only look at how things are going for the most fortunate ~35% of the population.

Oh, one more thing: You could afford to own your own house today too if we had 1950's zoning and building codes in place.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[krups gusto]

Hey now, I donate plenty to charity's and I'm still an asshole.
- koch brothers for a whiter america
- merit scholarships for priveleged white people whose parents might hire my company.
- Guns for tots.
- Coal for a more american smelling america
- storage units for homeless people somewhere I can't see them

Don't paint all of us assholes with the same broad brush.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[R4D4R]

I get your point but...
1950's cars had air conditioning, they where quite reliable if your did proper maintenance and will typically sell for far more than $500 today (even scrap value is probably above $500 right now)

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[lgw]

If you're affirming the consequent, then you're probably an asshole.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Quirkz]

I'm pretty sure that the GP meant "own" as in "not have a mortgage" where I'm positive the 66% figure in 2000 includes many people with mortgages. I don't think you two are talking about quite the same thing.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Joviex]

How, exactly, is 6.5% rampant?

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[Anonymous Coward]

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Look up real non BLS adjusted inflation stats at a site like shadowstats and you'll understand why official inflation numbers and the cost of living for middle class citizens have now become very poorly correlated.

Don't just look up numbers in an actuarial table. The average middle class college grad in the 1950s could pay off his student loans in less than two years and was able to afford a home and a car shortly thereafter, while being the only earner in a household.

Today I know other engineers who take 7+ years to pay off their college loans and who still cannot afford to buy an apartment, much less a home in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Government inflation numbers use hedonics now. Also, while a computer twice as fast costs half as much it doesn't improve my quality of life even in that small subset of my life by a four fold factor on a per dollar basis.

Technology growth curves are exponentially exponential and smoothly so. We have good data on the total wealth created by nations. I agree that a CEO should earn more than an engineer, but I know that obtuse and unfair legislative frameworks have lead to a salary ratio expansion that is a perversion of capitalism. CEO worth 30 times the engineer working for him like in the 1970's? Sure. Worth 400 times? I'm not so sure. However, currently accepted business practices allow the fruits of optimization to accrue disproportionately to the capital owners at the expense of newly redundant employees and while it might be legal it is immoral.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[mjwx]

A 1950's TV would cost ~$495 in 1950 dollars, which is ~$5,000 in 2014 dollars. It would be 21", low resolution, not capable of HD, use a ton of electricity, and eventually the phosphors would give out causing it to have wierd colors. In 2014 you can get a 52" TV for $600.

Hows that for "hidden inflation"?

This.

People forget that in the 50's everyone had fewer toys. It's quite possible to have a house on a single income like in the 50's... but you have to go the whole hog and completely 50-ise your life.

Thats one car, used sparingly.
No toys like Ipads.
1 modest TV and 1 modest computer for the whole family.
No central air conditioning or heating.
No mobile phone, only a landline which is used sparingly.
No dishwasher, you do it by hand.
An automatic washing machine is a luxury and forget the dryer.
No personal loans or credit cards, you save for what you want and pay cash.

You're lucky I'm not using 50's Australia, which is no TV, no computer and likely, no phone either.

When comparing now to nineteen-dickety-two they always forget that we have more toys now days.

However one of the biggest costs that we have now days that we didn't have in the 50's is our reliance on credit. When someone loans their money out, they expect to get it all back plus some. Most people dont get this when they put everything on credit. Interest, Interchange fees and Merchant Service Fees are giant black holes which swallow money whenever something is bought on credit.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[dryeo]

That's the difference between inflation (low) and the cost of living (high).

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[LordLimecat]

Im not sure you are correct.

1) I think Census.gov is well aware of the legal circumstances around mortgages, and I got the impression from their site that they were actually NOT considering mortgages. But even if that were the case...

2) I do believe with a mortgage YOU own the house; there is simply a lien on the title, so that it is forfeit if you renege on your debt. This is similar to a car title loan; you still own the car, but you lose it if you default.

Re:We are being bred for slavery

[LordLimecat]

So how are you explaining the fact that-- despite the massive growth in disparity-- the middle class is comparatively richer than ever?

I mean at some point you're going to have to square up with those median incomes, which for some groups (black women) have increased 6-fold and in all cases have nearly doubled.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[LordLimecat]

Yeah in 10 years vs the 2 years you can expect a modern TV to last but that is a different issue.

Bull. I dont know of anyone who had to replace their TV in 2 years. My sample size is limited (probably 30-50 TVs / monitors), but I know my own DLP is 8 years old at this point, and my PC monitor is 6 years old.

In the 1950's a middle class home could have that $5000 TV.

No, they couldnt, because their 1950 income was ~$2000/year.

n 2014, someone earning the median $30k/yr income CANNOT afford a $5000 TV.

Yes, he can, because rent + food + expenses should hit ~$20000 if he is frugal.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[LordLimecat]

I mixed up currency years above, let me clarify.
(2004 USD)
1950: income, ~$9000; TV: $5000. TV represents ~55% of your income. This is pretty much not doable.
2004: income, ~$32000; TV: $600. TV represents ~2% of your income. Even assuming you get a $5000 TV, you're looking at ~17% of your income

Im not sure how you're figuring that he is worse off today.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Patent Lover]

In the 70's our tv was about 17" and black and white. Color and 21" in the 50's would be a dream.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[i.kazmi]

On September 30, 2010, the Board of Directors of Hewlett-Packard announced the election of Apotheker as the company's Chief Executive Officer and President, effective November 1. During Apotheker's tenure at HP, the stock dropped about 40%, dropping nearly 25% on 19 August 2011 after HP announced a number of seemingly abrupt strategic decisions: to discontinue its webOS device business (mobile phones and tablet computers), to begin planning to divest its personal computer division and to acquire British software firm Autonomy for a significant premium. Over the months following Apotheker's departure, HP eventually spun-off the remaining webOS assets into a new subsidiary, Gram; backtracked on any plans to spin-off HP's personal computer division and wrote-down almost $9 billion related to the Autonomy acquisition, which it indicated was due to a lack of due diligence during the acquisition process under Apotheker.

Though Apotheker served barely ten months, he received over $13 million in compensation: a severance payment of $7.2 million, shares worth $3.56 million and a performance bonus of $2.4 million (seriously? performance bonus? despite the company losing more than $30 billion in market capitalization during his tenure.

In other news, HP laid off around 16000 employees just a couple of weeks ago (this in addition to several thousad that they've laid off over the past couple years) but hey, when these employees speak out against what's wrong with the system, knobheads such as yourself can go and tell them how they're just a bunch of lazy whiners who're unhappy simply because Mr. Apotheker, an honest to God hardworking individual, is doing so much better than them!

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[HiThere]

No...or yes. In corporate ownership control is vested in the wealthy (i.e., in the large investors). In a democracy theoretically all votes are equal, and each (represented) person gets only one vote.

The "or yes' is because the theory isn't well mapped to the implementation, and this is largely because of interference by corporations and other similar entities. (These days I think it's all corporations, but there used to be extremely wealthy people with similar power.) Note that in these cases the influence is managed by corporate management rather than by "owners", and often does things that the majority of owners would be apalled by, but usually not that the weighted majority of owners would be apalled by (where weight is measured by the number of voting shares that are held).

It's actually much more similar to an aristocracy than to a democracy.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[lgw]

Well, it's quite similar to democracy-as-practice in most times and places in history. At least we don't have a Roman-style formal wealth requirement to run for office.

But the amazing thing here is that anyone, regardless of birth, is legally allowed to become wealthy (and that's only been true here for 150 years, after all). For all that it's less than ideal, it's progress. And, really, building wealth is just a matter of impulse control and setting priorities in life, so while the problem of a few people getting lots of control is real, getting one "fair share" of control just isn't that hard.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Dishevel]

What the Board of Directors of a private company want to pay a CEO is none of my business. I do not own HP stock. If I did own HP stock I would care long enough to divest my self of their stock. Then I would go back to not giving a shit what they decide to pay an employee.

Do I think he got overpaid? Sure. He sucks and got paid a lot. I care about my community, my family and my job performance and compensation. I am not going to ask how much you make and decide if I like it or not. It is none of my business how much your employer wants to pay you. Now if some one wants to sign a contract that pays me crap loads and gives me bonuses no matter how badly I screw up ... I think I would be ok with that.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[gmyuriy]

Now if some one wants to sign a contract that pays me crap loads and gives me bonuses no matter how badly I screw up ... I think I would be ok with that.

Yeah good luck with that, you are just naive or stupid, more likely the second. He got that contract not because he is better or more qualified, but just because the system you live in had it made for him. respectively you will NEVER get that contract. If you care about your family and community, you would advocate a system that improves life for them. what are you saying, however, to put it in a more understandable perspective, is that in Rome slaves should not have complained because their owner has it that they are housed and fed. I hope you understand all the nonse of your words (unless you are the owner).

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[jxander]

You missed the point entirely.

$500 in the 50s equates to roughly $5000 today.

A median family could afford that $500 TV in the 50s. Could a median family afford a $5000 TV today? I don't think so. Ergo, buying power of the median family has decreased.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[shaitand]

I think you replied to the wrong post. Your point is the same point I was making.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[LordLimecat]

Your groceries are going up roughly in line with inflation, at least over the last 10 years or so.

Gas is an entirely different animal, and cant really be brought into a discussion on US economics.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[Dishevel]

Learn to use quote properly. The system we have has allowed more mobility along the economic ladder than any other ever, I advocate for a system that dose not value equality of income over the ability to create and succeed. What I want for my children is an environment that allows for the possibility that their hard work past failures can reward them. I do not want a system that provides for all their needs regardless of effort.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[jxander]

whoops. yeah. Meant to reply to limecat, above. C'est la vie.

Re: We are being bred for slavery

[HiThere]

It was a lot easier to "build wealth" 5 or 6 decades ago. Except that for some people it wasn't. But if you think that all it takes to build wealth is "impluse control and setting priorities in life", then you are either very lucky, have wealthy parents, of haven't tried yet.

Most people have a certain spectum of skills, and some are more rewarded than others. What's rewarded has more to do with who's making the decisisons about pay levels than it does about relative difficulty of work. And if you can start near the center, you have a tremendous advantage over those who start nearer the edge. If you start near the edge, there may be no legal way to make progress (though sometimes there is, as luck then plays an even larger role).

If you were instead to claim that those with poor impulse control and poor ability to set priorities were more likely to fail, then I'd agree. But if you're lucky, then the game is your's to loose. If you're "sort of middling" then given luck you might just win. If you're on the edge, your most probable fate is to be thrown under the wheel, and your skills other than intimidation and as a con-man won't aid you much. But it is true that from every position poor impulse control and poor ability to set priorities will PROBABLY cause you to slip towards the edge.

Price Wars

[imunfair]

Since Netflix already paid off Comcast I'd wager they're willing to do the same for Verizon. However, Verizon is probably trying to bleed them for more than they're willing to pay. In other words, this is just their way of negotiating the contract down to a "reasonable" amount. (as if they should even have to make payoffs to the cable companies in the first place)

Re:Price Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast > Verizon, they could leverage this to avoid paying anything because if it doesn't work ONLY for Verizon that looks bad.

Re:Price Wars

[Austerity Empowers]

This is why you don't negotiate with terrorists.

Re:Price Wars

[pixelpusher220]

They already HAS paid Verizon for better service...and Verizon STILL isn't providing it...

Re:Price Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really terrorism...more like blackmail. Still shouldn't pay them though.

Re:Price Wars

[Curunir_wolf]

They already HAS paid Verizon for better service...and Verizon STILL isn't providing it...

No, not for "better service", they paid for an interconnect. That's it. It means that instead of streaming traversing from Netflix -> 3rd party backbone provider -> Verizon, it now goes directly from Netflix -> Verizon. So Verizon is correct - they are providing a connection from Netflix at the data rate specified in the agreement. Those messages may be the interconnect is actually too small (because Netflix undersized it), or something between the user's device and Verizon's network. Sure, it could be a crowded Verizon network, but claiming it's THE cause is speculation, and claiming that there is something Verizon isn't providing is completely wrong.

Re:Price Wars

[lfourrier]

If it's Verizon, it's an ISP, and everybody know those are bad.
But with Netflix, actively engaging again net neutrality and asking DRM in HTTP, it is also bad.
So, the public is victim of two would-be/actual monopolists.

The solution, I think, is no streaming.

On a side note, video is really overrated.
Days are only 24 hours, you use a few sleeping, you have better things to do than watching movies the rest of the time.

Re:Price Wars

[NatasRevol]

Wait, what is Netflix a would-be/actual monopoly of?

Re:Price Wars

[lfourrier]

it want to be a monopoly of video delivery, and don't hesitate to buy privilegied treatment from Comcast, to "indemnize" Comcast, but also to increase the cost of competing with it.

Re: Price Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for determining what I should be doing with my time and when. Any other aspects of my life you think you are better to judge?

In return, I'd like to offer a suggestion to you, one that will benefit all mankind.

DIAF.

Re:Price Wars

[Curunir_wolf]

Days are only 24 hours, you use a few sleeping, you have better things to do than watching movies the rest of the time.

Well I don't know about that, people should be able to spend their time how they want.

On the other hand, when they are petitioning the government to solve a problem, they might want to consider issues like the broken tax code, drone wars, ubiquitous surveillance and the $17 trillion federal debt, rather than imposing new regulations on Internet service because their video watching marathons are doing too much buffering.

Re: Price Wars

[lfourrier]

Die In A Fire, oh, no!
too much CO2, and with global warming and all...
What chord did I touch ?
Of course everybody spend or waste his time as he wish. But please don't break the fabric and the principles of internet just for couch potatoes.

Re:Price Wars

[ganjadude]

exactly, I mean days are SOO short, I bet you have better things to do than post on /. as well right????

Re:Price Wars

[dshk]

I can easily imagine that Verizon is correctly saying that the backbone providers have not got enough bandwidth to them. After all Verizon knows very well if they intentionally crippled these connections and agreements. Backbone providers gladly build better connections. Their customers, like me or anybody who rent or colocate a server, or maintains his own datacenter, for example Netflix, pay them to have good connections to end users.

Re:Price Wars

[Mashiki]

The difference between Verizon and an actual terrorist is one is a legal pillaging and rape of your wallet. The other is just a terrorist.

Re:Price Wars

[Man On Pink Corner]

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
    To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
    And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that pays it is lost!"

Re:Price Wars

[Spyder]

Your solution,"Stop liking what I don't like.", does not scale.

The point here is that regardless of where the customer unfriendly behavior is coming from, the customer has very little recourse to vote with their wallet. Market freedom isn't working, and regulation is unfortunately capriciously applied. I'll accept that streaming introduced negative externalities to the Internet peering arrangements, but service providers have been much more interested in being content providers than dealing with the inherent overhead problems.

Re: Price Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "touch/hit a nerve" and "struck a chord". The latter, by the way, does not mean the same thing as the former. My name is AC#317/4, and I've been your idiomiser this evening.

Re: Price Wars

[lfourrier]

fine. I got to (re)learn something this evening. Thanks

Re:Price Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Days are only 24 hours, you use a few sleeping, you have better things to do than watching movies the rest of the time.

No, not really.

Re:Price Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

They do a pretty good job of monopolizing online video delivery of commercial content. In part I'm sure this is down to digital restrictions, the law, and the entertainment industries position. Essentially whereas before the internet anybody with a small amount of cash saved (or combined with a few partners) could open a video rental store now only HUGE companies can. And that is because there is no (seemingly) legal way to stream those DVDs to customers without getting the permission of copyright holders.

Before you could just buy the DVD/video discs and rent them out. And it was easy. Now you have to negotiate a contract with a ton of different companies, setup complex and expensive infrastructure, etc. Sure, there are a few alternatives, but largely they provide a different niche service.

IE YouTube is mostly non-commercial content or very old content illegally posted. And maybe a small selection of commercial content (but only via DRM systems). Then there is Amazon, but Amazon's selection is small and more like a traditional DVD rental service than an all-you-can-eat restaurant (again DRM'd). And lastly there is hulu, which provides old and shit movies / TV shows (again DRM'd).

I could name some others... both why bother?

Re:Price Wars

[MikeBabcock]

Your comment includes "because Netflix undersized it" when what you meant was "because Netflix and/or Verizon undersized and/or used a low quality port for it"

Re:Price Wars

[MikeBabcock]

When did Netflix become a monopoly? I can stream movies from Netflix, Video Unlimited (Sony), Amazon and there are others too.

Are you confused because Netflix is so common?

Re:Price Wars

[currently_awake]

It is in Netflix's best interest to pay up. It means everyone else has to pay, and anyone trying to start a competing service won't have the cash, so they will be blocked from getting into the game.

Re:Price Wars

[NatasRevol]

So, thepiratebay.se doesn't exist?

Or serve more video than Netflix?

Or Hulu, or youtube, or vimeo, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Re:Price Wars

[Sleeping Kirby]

Wait... since netflix has direct connection to verizon, and I doubt netflix's amazon cloud servers discriminate between comcast and verizon connections. And if there is a slow down and it's only on verizon customers, why do you think it's netflix that undersized the connections? I mean, sure netflix could, but it would simpler and easier solution is that they didn't. Besides, if verizon is providing the bandwidth they said they did, instead of threatening to sue, why don't they just show logs/graphs of how much data is being pushed through and how fast. I'm sure they have splunk or cacti graphs somewhere.

Re:Price Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen any claim by Verizon that it's following the contract...source for that?

Rather than follow decades of precedence and peer equally with Level 3/Cogent etc, Verizon (& Comcast before) have left those interconnects to saturate even as traffic growth has skyrocketed. I forget which one of them also has called out ISPs as being the source of problems.

By signing a direct interconnect with Netflix...that does nothing to change the fact that Verizon is undersizing the connection. You're basically claiming Netflix doesn't know how much bandwidth it needs...even after successfully solving this same 'problem' with Comcast just a month previous. Why would Netflix sign up for an interconnect that wouldn't serve their needs?

And of course as has been mentioned, it's funny that Verizon's streaming service isn't similarly affected...

Re:Price Wars

[dslbrian]

Sure, it could be a crowded Verizon network, but claiming it's THE cause is speculation, and claiming that there is something Verizon isn't providing is completely wrong.

Well doesn't it seem rather odd then that in a ranking out of 60 ISPs, Verizon DSL comes in dead last?. (hit the include small ISPs button)

Even their Verizon FIOS ranks at 50. How is it that 49 other big and small ISPs come in faster than Verizon's FIOS when most of them probably do not have peering agreements. Seriously, who in the heck is going to pay for Verizon FIOS when it can't even stream Netflix as fast as a small broadband company. Verizon can complain all it wants, but I suspect Netflix has data to back up all their claims.

Re:Price Wars

[Curunir_wolf]

Wait... since netflix has direct connection to verizon, and I doubt netflix's amazon cloud servers discriminate between comcast and verizon connections.

You are misunderstanding how interconnects work. The servers aren't sitting there pushing out data to every connection. Netflix pays for delivery to several CDNs. They now have new agreements with Comcast and Verizon with connections directly to those networks. So the servers used for Verizon are different than the servers used for other network connections.

Re:Price Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed shortly after they settled with comcast netflix had a lot more content. I'm not sure verizon has as much leverage.

Re: Price Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be easy for Netflix to prove then. They should have the logs from the interconnects straight into verizons network which will show if their fibre uplinks are the bottleneck.

I wouldn't be telling Verizon shit, let them sue, pretty sure Netflix would win.

Re: Price Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Who would setup there racks that way! As if you wouldnt have them all coming into the same network and being aggregates somewhere and having routing determine which links are used. I seriously doubt they segregate parts of their server farm for different interconnects. That just sounds inefficient.

Re: Price Wars

[Curunir_wolf]

What? Who would setup there racks that way! As if you wouldnt have them all coming into the same network and being aggregates somewhere and having routing determine which links are used. I seriously doubt they segregate parts of their server farm for different interconnects. That just sounds inefficient.

Anyone with a large customer base that is pushing out a LOT of data (like Netflix). For the most part, they pay CDNs to deliver their data to the last-mile networks. With the Comcast and Verizon deal, they are co-locating their servers in Comcast and Verizon's data centers. The content they deliver is fairly static, so it makes sense to do it that way. User account data and other volatile data probably takes a different route, but when you start a movie streaming, you'll connect to the closest delivery point on your network. For Comcast and Verizon customers, that's now a shorter route.

Re:Price Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, excellent choice of words!

Re: Price Wars

[rezme]

Actually, according to Netflix's response to Verizon, they offered Verizon co-located boxes, but Verizon declined... "The letter criticized Verizon for not joining Netflix's Open Connect peering and caching program, which lets ISPs connect directly to Netflix or bring Netflix storage boxes into their own networks in order to improve quality." http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Re: Price Wars

[Sleeping Kirby]

yeah, this is what I thought they were doing. As big as verizon and comcast's data centers are, there's no way that they colo all of the data of all the content that netflix hosts. Not with the advantage of virtualized servers is allowing for caching and peering so that everyone, coming from different providers can still get the same content. That's not to mention that all the mentions of the deals between comcast and netflix mentioned direct peering, not colocation. http://arstechnica.com/busines... "News of a paid peering deal comes two days after a traceroute showed that the two companies were exchanging traffic with each other directly."

Redbox Instant

[corychristison]

Considering Verizon owns(?) Redbox Instant, why wouldn't they throttle Netflix?

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

Who actually uses Redbox Instant? Sorta kinda seriously asking.

Re:Redbox Instant

[jetkust]

They are expecting their first customer sometime in 2020.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm both a Verizon and Netflix customer and I've never even heard of Redbox Instant.

Re:Redbox Instant

[nctritech]

Heh. I never heard of Redbox Instant before now. Big marketing failure there, chaps.

Re:Redbox Instant

[aaarrrgggh]

Because that would be abuse of monopoly, and they take that stuff seriously!

The current situation is unacceptable, and it makes me want to dump both Verizon and Netflix. There are alternatives for both.

Re:Redbox Instant

[rwv]

As a policy Netflix doesn't promote or advertize Redbox Instant.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

Viable alternatives to Netflix or any other service routed over telecommunications? Yes. Viable alternatives to the telecommunications providers, whether they're treated as telecommunications providers or not? Very few if at all.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Wycliffe]

Who actually uses Redbox Instant? Sorta kinda seriously asking.

It's a pretty good deal for someone who mostly uses redbox and occasionally wants to stream.
It's $8 a month and gives you 4 rentals so comes out to $2-$3 per month for the streaming portion.
It's a way for redbox to lock in some customers and a way for verizon to test out it's own streaming service.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Wycliffe]

Heh. I never heard of Redbox Instant before now. Big marketing failure there, chaps.

It's only marketed to people who use redbox because that's it's only real value. It gives you 4 free rentals
per month plus streaming. If you rent from redbox you can't miss it.

Re:Redbox Instant

[pixelpusher220]

Verizon is playing favorites, Netflix is simply calling them out on it...how exactly is this a 'bad' attribute of Netflix? Hell Netflix has already paid Verizon for better access, and apparently Verizon still isn't providing it.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Chalnoth]

They don't actually need to throttle anything. They just have to fail to build the infrastructure required to support the bandwidth needs of their customers from a Netflix source. Basically, as video streaming has increased, it's created bottlenecks in existing internet infrastructure. If they don't keep up with the new bandwidth demands, they can't deliver the content.

Video streaming providers like YouTube and Netflix have been colocating cache servers at ISP's for a while now. These cache servers are actually cheaper for everybody: they're cheaper for the ISP because they don't need to build out as much new upstream bandwidth to keep their service going. They're cheaper for the content provider because the content provider doesn't get as many hits on its datacenters. And everybody else in between has a less-congested network.

So really it's a matter of ISP's like Verizon and Comcast refusing to allow Netflix/YouTube to build cache servers at the ISP's sites, despite the clear benefits to everybody.

Re:Redbox Instant

[jellomizer]

Well Verizon FIOS is the only price competition competition to Cable Internet Access. Netflix streaming is the "Killer App" that makes people want to upgrade to a faster connection.
Most people already have Cable based internet and Verizon wants to get people to switch to theirs.

Re: Redbox Instant

[O('_')O_Bush]

Because of the fodder it would give Comcast and AT&T.

Commercials involving slow Netflix (which that and YT are the biggest uses of bandwidth for most people) and placing blame squarely on Verizon or a Verizon lookalike is pretty persuasive when people are alreadying frustrated by their service.

Re:Redbox Instant

[JMJimmy]

Netflix has already issued a clarification. http://www.dslreports.com/show...

Re:Redbox Instant

[JWW]

I refuse to criticize Netflix for standing up to the ISP extortionists.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

More like you prepay for 4 overnight rentals and get a crappy streaming service for a small fee.

Re:Redbox Instant

[brxndxn]

I have Fios and I called about Netflix and Youtube issues. The customer service rep actually told me I should use Redbox Instant instead. I ended up saving the chat log because I was so incensed. I paid for the packets of data I request on the Internet. Verizon is trying to charge twice for those very same packets. The only reason I have Verizon is because it's one of two horrible choices I have for Internet access.

Further, I went ahead and flashed an old wireless access point to DD-WRT and set up an account with hidemyass.com (VPN provider) to see if that helped Netflix and Youtube. Sure enough, it did. Netflix was in HD every time after that and Youtube almost never had a hiccup or buffering issue in the middle of the video - as long as the traffic through the device was going to the VPN.

Netflix, please keep talking trash. Verizon, please go to hell.

Re:Redbox Instant

[JWW]

The irony here is that Version will claim no one is paying them to expand their capacity to deal with the Netflix traffic.

But then there customers should be able to ask and sue for an answer to the question: "If you don't have enough bandwidth to handle sending us data from Netflix, did you lie when you told us you were selling us X amount of bandwidth?"

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's illegal to throttle ANY traffic, let alone a competitor's traffic.

If Verizon is found to be throttling (which it is), it can lead to sanctions, or the FCC making all of their infrastructure common carrier (I vote they do that with all the big players immediately).

Re:Redbox Instant

[poetmatt]

The product is as equally made of fail as the marketing. The adoption of redbox instant is basically nonexistent, and ti's just as poorly developed with a fairly limited selection.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Necroman]

Your packets are just taking a different route to get to Netflix, so you are bypassing the bottleneck that is normally hit when accessing Netflix. As an end user you have no way to pick the route your packets take unless you proxy through another server (such as a VPN does). So Verizon isn't throttling, they just have overloaded interconnects to certain networks. This probably means that sites beyond Netflix/Youtube are effected by the problem, it's just not as apparent to end users.

Re:Redbox Instant

[sabri]

did you lie when you told us you were selling us X amount of bandwidth?

Well, to be fair, that's not really the case. I did a quick check on their website to see whether or not they were making any solid promises on bandwidth, but they're not. You're paying for a traffic allowance per month. Their highest plan is 50GB per month, which translates to ~150kbps... Barely enough for a decent Pandora stream.

BUT, I do agree that this is scumbag marketing. I could not find any promises of speed other than their general terms "Best LTE, Best coverage". Kind of deceptive. Legal perhaps, but deceptive.

Re:Redbox Instant

[robot256]

We're talking about Verizon Fios home internet here, not wireless...

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your understanding of network routing protocols is not complete. Every router everywhere's core job is to find and use the best possible routes for packets. That's it. If an end user can find a superior route by adding hops, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the underlying logical network structure. Either something logical is broken or someone has made configurations to make that happen. So sure, Verizon might not be throttling, they just are dumping packets, routing in loops, intentionally using worse routes, or are merely incompetent and not capable of running a functional network.

Doesn't really matter. Bottom line is if someone can add to a network path through Verizon and get better results, then it is the blatant fault of Verizon alone.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Shakrai]

They just have to fail to build the infrastructure required to support the bandwidth needs of their customers from a Netflix source.

And who gets to pay for that? I realize that's a politically unpopular question, but consider two facts:

1) Residential broadband networks were not originally designed or priced with high contention ratios in mind. This was demonstrated during the height of the p2p craze, when a small handful of users were able to consume a majority of the available network resources. Now you've got a mainstream application (streaming video) that uses as much or more bandwidth, one that can't be minimized by QoS rules or written off (justly or not) as illegal activity. You want 1:1 contention and promised speed? Open your pocketbook, because it's gonna cost you.... (>$1,100/mo is what my business pays for 30mbit/s of symmetrical pipe with SLA)

2) The last mile infrastructure costs the same to maintain whether you deliver three services (video, data, voice) over it or one service (data). If two services hemorrhage customers you've got to make up for the lost revenue by raising prices on the third service. CATV has peaked and will eventually be displaced by IPTV. Wireline voice has been a dying service for ten years and out of the three probably has the highest profit margin, so losing customers there really hurts. Data prices will rise to make up for these losses, even if the burden on the data network wasn't increasing, which of course it is.

You can't take a dispassionate look at broadband and not realize that the economics of the business are changing. The ISPs may be greedy bastards (Netflix isn't exactly an altruistic non-profit either, anybody remember the doubled prices just a few years ago?) but even those that hate them should be intellectually honest enough to recognize the increased costs and inefficiency (vis–à–vis point-to-multipoint solutions like OTA or CATV) imposed by IPTV.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Hodr]

I think you need to learn how routing protocols work. I will give you a hint, unless they are using 20+ year old protocols like RIP v1, it isn't shortest path that defines your route. Their network should route around congestion automatically (the VPN proves there is a less congested route), and the fact that it does not means that they are overriding the default behavior to send Netflix/Youtube/Whatever traffic to specific choke points.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

You should submit that log to the FCC discussion as evidence of how poorly the market acts without Net Neutrality.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

They have overloaded interconnects with *selected* networks.

Re:Redbox Instant

[brxndxn]

I am so sick of seeing this damn argument.. The bottom line is Verizon is slowing down and dropping packets that go to specific areas. It does not matter how they do it or what they are saying to justify it. It is intentional and they are lying when they're saying it's not. The fix, for a network provider, is simple and low cost - and it should be part of maintaining the network.

Verizon wants more money to fix their own network problems that they created intentionally because it allows them to extort money from their competition. Also, Verizon is lobbying to further legalize what they are doing since it is a fairly grey area right now. So.. they are both lobbying for the right to slow down competitor traffic and they are claiming that the existing slow-downs in competitor traffic are a 'technical issue' that is not their fault when they are in full control of the means to fix the technical issue.

Re:Redbox Instant

[sabri]

We're talking about Verizon Fios home internet here, not wireless...

Thank you, random internet person! I stand corrected. JWW was right.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Chalnoth]

I think you missed the point that allowing cache servers to be built lowers the overall cost to the ISP for their network. Also, they shouldn't be advertising bandwidth they can't deliver.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

So is part of the problem then that Netflix is having some pains growing its own CDN? Because I'm pretty sure Akamai has servers at Verizon locations. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/06/05/netflix-shifts-traffic-to-its-own-cdn-akamai-limelight-shrs-hit/

Re:Redbox Instant

[Shakrai]

Also, they shouldn't be advertising bandwidth they can't deliver.

Good thing they say "up to" then.....

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done the same VPN trick (LiquidVPN). Worked like a charm. The sad part is, I'm still paying Verizon. Either them or Comcast, or no internet at all, so pretty pathetic choices.
The other odd part, is Netflix performance didn't just drop off slowly over time. One day it worked decent, the next day, it stopped. So they can claim what they want about "not upgrading infrastructure" but my experience is they throttled it back intentionally. If that means they swapped out to a 10BaseT switch one day, whatever, the result is the same.

I'm happy to see Netflix fight this (and I wish they didn't pay Comcast or Verizon). And I agree, Verizon please go to hell.

Re:Redbox Instant

[desdinova 216]

I think he means that he's never heard of redbox instant. Verizon hasn't really promoted it heavily

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

So please explain to me how that's not Verizon's fault then?

Re:Redbox Instant

[ganjadude]

mod this one up. He should totally submit that convo

Re:Redbox Instant

[DamnOregonian]

No. They paid for a cross-connect and a router port at a specified bitrate. They got it, and it still wasn't enough.

But I know, we should regulate evil Verizon to force them into peering arrangements with third-parties.

Incredible.

Certainly you can see that such idiocy doesn't scale...

Re:Redbox Instant

[DamnOregonian]

I refuse to criticize Verizon for standing up to content-provider extortionists.

Re:Redbox Instant

[DamnOregonian]

Come on, seriously?

Are they to guarantee to-home bandwidth to every network on the internet?

What *is* your bar for forcing a peering arrangement between two networks?

Re:Redbox Instant

[fustakrakich]

...$1,100/mo is what my business pays for 30mbit/s of symmetrical pipe with SLA

You only pay that much because your service provider owns the government that granted its monopoly. Hardly an open market, is it?

Re:Redbox Instant

[DamnOregonian]

JWW couldn't have been more wrong.

No ISP promises the provisioned bandwidth to any network on the internet.

You're paying for a connection to the internet, and a certain amount of bandwidth from your home to the edges of your provider's network. If your providers peering arrangements suck, then you get a new provider. If you can't get a new provider, then you lobby for service provider de-monopolization.

OR, I suppose you could just try to force them to peer with everyone via legislative fiat. Because that will scale fantastically.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Shakrai]

If you have a better system I'm all ears. Don't bother replying if your only idea is to trade the unarmed duopoly (Time Warner/Verizon) for a heavily armed monopoly (Government) that can literally put you in jail if you don't do what they want.

Re:Redbox Instant

[sjames]

But since the route still has to get through peering w/ Verizon, it lends some credence to the suggestion that Verizon is selectively oversubscribing the peering points. Normally, traversing a VPN would be expected to damage connectivity.

Verizon isn't lying in the same sense as a used car salesman isn't lying.

Re:Redbox Instant

[kevmeister]

I think you need to learn how routing protocols work. I will give you a hint, unless they are using 20+ year old protocols like RIP v1

I don't think you have worked for a real provider for quite a few years. RIP v1 (which is way more than 20 years old) has been effectively dead for years. Every provider has used either OSPF or ISIS for years. A few smaller providers may still use EIGRP, a pretty good proprietary protocol developed by Cisco. This goes back to at least the beginning of the commercialization of the Internet in the late 90s.

But these shortest-path protocols are only used for "interior" routing. That is, within a single administrative domain, like Verizon or Comcast or the University of California at Berkeley. (All of these entities actually have more than one administrative domain to make things manageable or to deal with organizational requirements.)

Between these domain a border protocol, BGPv4 is universal. It is also fairly stupid as it has no information on the interiors of the networks it is talking to. Instead it has a set of metrics that decide what routes to prefer and filter to control what routes are even accepted from neighbors (usually called 'peers'). There are very few metrics. the main one is called AS path length, or the number of administrative domains between points. It is fairly common to edit this path to make one or another path preferred, usually to prefer less expensive paths. Use the free or cheap path if you can and only use the relatively expensive path when there is no other choice. This is a gross over-simplification, but his i not a networking class.

The North American Network Operators Group (NANOG) has several excellent tutorials on routing protocols free on-line if you want to learn more, but, as simple s BGP is, the actual ways it is implemented get very arcane.

Netflix would probably be interested in evidence that Verizon is deliberately limiting traffic. I'm sure that they would be delighted to hear from anyone who can provide things like records of chats or e-mail where Verizon employees makes statements demonstrating this.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not really. Comcast and Verizon probably want to make their on-demand video services that compete with Netflix artificially look more better than they are. Since Comcast is also a content developer these days (remember, they now own NBC+Universal), they're very compelled to try to vertically integrate their own products and services at the expense of everyone else (YouTube, NetFlix, and possibly even Hulu).

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no! They're not "throttling" Netflix. They just have Netflix in the standard level of service for the internet, while their own Redbox Instant and 99.9% of the rest of the internet is moving through their "Fast Lanes."

Go fuck yourself FCC, you had one fucking job to do with that vote and you fucked it all to hell.

Re:Redbox Instant

[synapse7]

and a portion of your soul goes to the devil.

Re:Redbox Instant

[shaitand]

Because Verizon has customers paying them for unrestricted access to web content, including Netflix.

But I doubt Verizon does throttling to reduce the quality of Netflix for the sake of redbox instant, it's far more likely to be about boosting their own cable service subscriptions.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't use Redbox at all. It's not convenient enough. I will find myself in a location with a RedBox maybe once a week or twice a week. Those days are probably not the same day that I would want to watch the movie. Even if that does happen, I don't rent it because you have to return it. It'll be another week before I go back there. It's not like I need to go to the grocery store or wherever else they are two days in a row. I don't drive, so getting to the store means, walking, busing, or getting a ride. Well on the weekend when you have time to kill in the afternoon and want to get out of the house, walking to the store makes sense, but even then, only if you need other stuff. On a weekday, no way, would I waste precise evening time walking to the store for something as trivial as a movie. Similar story with the bus. It takes up a lot of time, plus it costs way more then the movie. Worth it if I need something important that can't wait until I have a ride, but a movie isn't such a thing. Get a ride, well they aren't going to go unless they need something too. This isn't going to happen two days in a row either. If I go shopping with roommates two days in a row, it's to go to different stores. Even if I had my own car, it still isn't worth going out of my way to return a movie. If they would let me stream a brand new movie for $2, maybe I'd take them up on that offer sometimes, especially if I can get it in 3D. But services which do that want a lot more money. No thanks. Piracy is way more convenient and way cheaper. I have my Netflix subscription and my Hulu Plus subscription. Those are even better then piracy and worth the $16/mo.

Re:Redbox Instant

[sabri]

You're paying for a connection to the internet, and a certain amount of bandwidth from your home to the edges of your provider's network.

You know that, and I know that. But I'll bet you that my mother in law won't. And if you have one as well, chances are that your's won't know that either.

And the only reason we know that is because we happen to know a bit about networking. The average Joe has no clue. All he sees is a "20 megabit connection" to the internet.

Sabri
JNCIE #261
ECE-IPN #2

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have no idea how routing works.

Utilization as a metric has been tried and has always failed miserably.

Re:Redbox Instant

[fustakrakich]

No, you don't get it. I'm just telling you why you pay so much. Personally, I don't give a damn. No duopoly or monopoly can exist without government protection. The solution, if you're looking for one, is up to you. I'm only observing, not advising.

Re:Redbox Instant

[TangoMargarine]

Um, isn't Netflix pretty specifically the only major provider that ISN'T owned/run by the Big X? Which is why the ISPs who are owned by the same/similar people are trying to shut them down so hard?

Re:Redbox Instant

[issicus]

I just signed up and I have verizon dsl. it just feels right...

Re:Redbox Instant

[MikeBabcock]

Wouldn't that be product tying? Why should the bandwidth a customer pays Verizon for in any way be tied to Verizon's other services?

Verizon's services will be served faster simply by nature of being on Verizon's own network; there's no need to artificially hamper a competitor unless your own product is terrible.

Re:Redbox Instant

[MikeBabcock]

The real question is whether Verizon's other transits are equally saturated. For instance, does an HD Youtube video stutter as much on Verizon as a Netflix video? If not, and if Google isn't paying for a high-bandwidth direct link, then Verizon is lying here.

Internet connections are resilient unless tampered with -- the Netflix data should get to the customer another way around if the direct link is full (such as through Level3 or another peer).

Luckily, you can look some of this up right now: http://www.google.com/get/vide...

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they see 100Mb and claim that's the connection they have... I imagine 1Gb will take over soon and trying to explain that will be the joy of my day...

I wish people knew more. (It seems for every 10 I educate there are 10,000 more waiting to make me hate my life.)

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't criticize Netflix for paying off Comcast?

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

If this goes to court, both parties are going to have to publish their netflow reports, and this will definitively prove who is lying.

It is my opinion that Netflix are the ones who are lying, but I have no evidence to back that up, except that Verizon is a large international transit network, and they have acted in good faith and delivered what they promise in all the dealings I've had with them as a TE at an overseas (non-US) ISP.

Re:Redbox Instant

[DamnOregonian]

ISP Network Engineer here,

You don't load-balance inbound data across multiple providers.

We peer with Netflix for precisely this reason. They were crushing a single of our upstreams at any point in time. Unfortunately, Netflix does *not* peer openly, unless they're doing it on a public IX. Once they started peering at SIX though, we jumped on the wagon quick.

That is to say- Internet connections are *not* resilient in the way you're using the word, or even designed to be so. In the case of failure, routing protocols are certainly designed to find alternate paths, but you simply don't get load balancing across multiple ASNs.

Re:Redbox Instant

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon isn't peering, they are delivering transit to and from their customers; the same customers who spend whatever Verizon charges for broadband who are SPECIFICALLY asking for Netflix's traffic. Netflix isn't asking Verizon to to peer for free, Netflix is trying to deliver data that Verizon's customers are asking for and probably expect to get given how the services are marketed.

I don't think I favor a bunch of regulation here either, but don't try and dismiss Verizon's actions here as anything other than underhanded, and borderline fraudulent with their customers. No, Verizon doesn't owe Netflix shit (apart from any deals they might have made), but if they aren't delivering content their customers are asking for, they richly deserve to get called out on it.

DISCLAIMER: I work for a CDN that delivers traffic for Netflix, but we won't be for much longer. Netflix has built their own CDN and won't be using third party CDNs anymore, which is why they are having an issue now with providers. I'd be lying if I wasn't experiencing a little schadenfreude in their pain. I think they thought this shit was easy. :-)

Re:Redbox Instant

[fulldecent]

> The customer service rep actually told me I should use Redbox Instant instead

Please provide these logs. This is newsworthy.

I can't hear Verizon...

[magsol]

...over the sound of all its whining.

Re:I can't hear Verizon...

[ganjadude]

......can you hear me now?

No proof?

[B33rNinj4]

I'll run a comparison with my current network (Verizon) and when Google Fiber finally drops in my area. I'm sure I'll find all the proof I need.

Re:No proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy to prove. Use a proxy, ssh tunnel, or VPN outside of Verizon's network, then access Netflix and compare it to not using one of those.

Re:No proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. That tells you that all of the providers between Google and Netflix aren't congested. But the equation doesn't contain just two variables. In the case of Verizon specifically it contains three. Netflix hired Cogent to carry the content and Cogent peers with Verizon. Cogent underbid everyone else because they refuse to pay peering overages, which obviously something like Netflix would cause. Verizon is capping the connectivity between themselves and Cogent at the threshold ratio at which Cogent has been willing to pay.

This is not the first time that Cogent has been in this situation. Of the 13 examples of "de-peering" instances listed on Wikipedia Cogent is listed 6 times. Netflix went with the low bid fully knowing what they were getting into. Netflix could opt to pay for the ratio difference themselves, like they are with Comcast.

Now I am both a FiOS customer (not employee) and a Netflix customer. I tried, unsuccessfully, to watch several shows over the weekend. It does piss me off something fierce, but my anger is directed at both Netflix and Verizon as they both just bitch and moan rather than trying to solve the issue for their customers.

Re:No proof?

[Charliemopps]

I'll run a comparison with my current network (Verizon) and when Google Fiber finally drops in my area. I'm sure I'll find all the proof I need.

Google Fiber serves a few thousand customers country wide. Don't hold your breath.

Re:No proof?

[pixelpusher220]

Then why aren't Cogent's other peers having the same issue? The issue here is Verizon, just as it was with Comcast.

Re:No proof?

[CheshireDragon]

This!
Anytime I have issues streaming with Netflix I just throw on my VPN(from private internet access) and problem solved. IF Verizon wants proof, I have it right here.

Re:No proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like Level 3? Sprint? AOL? Telia? Teleglobe? They have.

Others may choose to ignore the peering imbalance. That is their prerogative. Either way, Netflix is getting what they paid for. And now, since Netflix is covering the difference with Comcast, they get to pay more.

Re:No proof?

[Bengie]

Netflix stated that they had to hire Cogent because Verizon refused to accept Netflix traffic from any other CDN. Netflix stated that they were willing to pay the higher price of Level 3, but Verizon wouldn't accept it.

Maybe Verizon knew that Cogent was bad and wanted to try to cause Netflix into a "guilt by association" situation. Or maybe Verizon finds it easier to flex against Cogent than Level 3, who is many times larger than Verizon when it comes to transit.

Re:No proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

The more interesting aspect is observing Verizon's behaviour to all other CDN's traffic since they purchased EdgeCast. Netflix uses a bunch of CDNs in addition to serving from Cogent (Akamai, LimeLight, L3, their own). I believe that Verizon is trying to strangle companies into buying their CDN service. CDN service is far more profitable then peering contracts; just look at Akamai's financials for an example.

Re:No proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a few thousand customers because of this: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/06/04/2133215/hundreds-of-cities-wired-with-fiber-but-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unusable

Sorry, second post ever on /. after some lurking. I still don't know how to hyperlink properly as I'm a dumbass.

Basically don't expect any major improvements with the current ISP oligarchy in the US.

Any way for them both to lose?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can we cheer for that?

FWIW

[Enry]

I was doing a bit of streaming over the weekend (BSG) from my Tivo on FIOS and didn't get see any messages nor did I see performance problems.

Re:FWIW

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon isn't limited to FiOS. The vast majority of their ISP services for customers is over DSL.

Re:FWIW

[Anonymous Coward]

FIOS - you've already been fleeced, so you wouldn't see a slowdown.

It's the poor folks still on their DSL service that they won't spend a dime to improve, nor will they bring FIOS in.

Re:FWIW

[alphatel]

Verizon isn't limited to FiOS. The vast majority of their ISP services for customers is over DSL.

And the fact that they call that "broadband" is reprehensible. Verizon DSL is awful and never meets the speeds the customer pays for.

Re:FWIW

[alen]

i take it you don't know how DSL works

Re:FWIW

[Enry]

Now sure how so. I've purchased their 50Mbps tier and regularly get 6MBps downloads from Steam and other locations. I'm quite satisfied with the network performance.

Re:FWIW

[Frobnicator]

And the fact that they call that "broadband" is reprehensible.

As slashdot users, most of us understand that 'broadband' refers to frequency, not speed. Broadband is different from baseband, in that they use their spectrum differently.

DSL is broadband by definition. It doesn't matter if they give you a 1kbit connection or 5GBit connection, it will remain broadband as long as the frequencies are partitioned in that way.

Re:FWIW

[OhPlz]

Perhaps you don't. Your DSL modem may connect and stay connected at 15Mb, but if it's connected to DSLAM that's over populated, you're not going to get to use that 15Mb to its full potential. The pinch point might not even be the DSLAM, but something further down the line. DSL doesn't even connect at the advertised rate necessarily. I was paying for 15Mb at one point, but the modem often negotiated something lower. Most customers wouldn't even notice that, you'd have to realize your IO rates are wrong or actually log into the modem and see what it connected at. DSL is great if the wiring in the area is decent and the provider does everything properly, but that's unlikely to be the case in a lot of areas with crappy providers such as Verizon.

Re:FWIW

[OhPlz]

I live in a small city where the outskirts get high data rates, but those of us closer to the center get lousy service. Why? Old infrastructure. Verizon (now Fairpoint) refused to invest in it because they know the people living in this area have a choice between bad service from Comcast or bad service from Verizon/Fairpoint. Why bother upgrading it if the customers can't leave for something better? I bet this happens all across the US where there's older infrastructure and no effective competition. I hope someday that Google fiber or something similar will reset this mess we're in. The public utilities commission certainly isn't helping despite constant complaints from the people harmed by it.

Re:FWIW

[Shakrai]

Verizon DSL is awful and never meets the speeds the customer pays for.

Did you miss the words "up to" that are included on all of their marketing literature, the customer agreement, and your monthly bill?

how can you sue for this?

[nimbius]

if (check_network_speed() == '-1'){
if (our_nets_check_ok() && systems_latency_ok()){
print "the $network is crowded";
}
}

Re:how can you sue for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how fucking lame it is to post this pseudo code? But in this case, it's not pseudo code... It's just some dumb kid with no perspective on how complex networks work.

And it's formatted like a faggot. Only faggots cuddle their braces.

Re:how can you sue for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

if (check_network_speed() == '-1'){

if (our_nets_check_ok() && systems_latency_ok()){

print "the $network is crowded";

}

}

They are in the United States. They can sue for that.

Re:how can you sue for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the USA Mac... WE CAN SUE FOR ANYTHING!

Problem here is that I'm both a Netfilx and Verizon customer. Where I am miffed that I have difficulty streaming stuff from Netflix during the busy times, I'm not sure who I blame, Verizon of Netflix. In my view, it's both. This pissing contest is only getting the customers wet guys, and I for one am tired of both sides in this.

This "Stop blaming us or we will sue you!" tactic from Verizon just makes me mad. Come on guys, I pay you $$ for some high speed internet access, and where I took the "Blame Verizon for having a slow network" claims from Netflix with a grain of salt, your legal threats don't help your case. If you don't like customer complaints, then get talking to Netflix who gets a lot of them from your customers... Cut a deal before Netflix figures out a way to side step your bottle necked network and your chance for a deal vaporize.

Detect this sarcasm

[TheSpinningBrain]

Right. Verizon isn't artificially limiting network speeds. Just like Comcast wasn't.

Re:Detect this sarcasm

[gfxguy]

+1 Informative... too bad I have no mod points, but it's an incredibly interesting graph. As a Netflix/Comcast subscriber, with no viable alternative to high speed internet service, I've always argued against Netflix's caving into Comcast's extortion. Of course, the date is supplied by Netflix, but it echoes what we've experienced at home.... it used to work just fine, then suddenly it was terrible and we were always getting "rebuffering" messages, and often enough Netflix would just give up and not play.

I know people counter that this was a result of Netflix's service provider not having decent connections to the rest of the net, but the graph tells all...

Re:Detect this sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

Now Verizon gonna sue your ass!!

Re:Detect this sarcasm

[Charliemopps]

SOURCE: Netflix

lol

Re:Detect this sarcasm

[Talderas]

What does it tell? It shows a simultaneous decline with numerous other providers during the timeframe when Netflix and Comcast were negotiation for direct transit rather than requiring transit through intermediaries like Cogent. Without knowing when the direct transit was initiated, it's hard to tell exactly what went on. Very likely it's was done shortly after the deal was concluded and if you will note that AT&T and Verizon, who were both declining, ceased declining at the same rate and also started improving. It is quite possible that by cutting Cogent out of the Netflix-Comcast route that also improved performance for AT&T/Verizon by removing traffic from Cogent's network.

Re:Detect this sarcasm

[Ecuador]

Ok, so there are no rules in place that would make Comcast enforce net neutrality. But I don't understand, why wouldn't their customers have a good class-action case against them? I mean, I am paying a (decent in the case of Comcast customers) monthly service fee and I have a reasonable expectation of being able to access whatever I want at a reasonable speed. Why aren't Comcast/Verizon customers recruited for a good ol' class action, since they are essentially paying a monthly fee just to be added to the pool of Comcast/Verizon customers that those companies can "dangle" in front of the likes of Netflix in order to extract more fees. I am not in the US right now, but when I had a TWC (=another crap ISP) contract, it didn't say that TWC could decide what I could download at slow or fast speeds - is that no longer the case?

Re:Detect this sarcasm

[oldmac31310]

Where is Time Warner Cable in this graph?

Re:Detect this sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your customer agreement specifically states that you ISP doesn't guarantee speed or availability and you agreed to it. Look it up, I guarantee it's there.

Re:Detect this sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does not guarrantee" speed does not mean selectively throttling down whatever they feel like to extort more money. That's why courts usually don't let such technicalities go through - e.g. if you paid to buy something whose ad looked like a TV and was priced like a TV, but only said " 42" TV picture " and they send you a picture of a 42" TV, the courts would side with you to get your money back. So the no speed guarantee as it is worded in our ISP contracts implies that there is a best effort from the ISP, but congestion etc can limit speeds. Intentionally downgrading the service you are paying for is certainly not according to the TOS.

I want to see where this goes

[nine-times]

I'm really interested to see what evidence ends up being offered in this. Can Netflix prove that ISPs are at fault? Can Verizon prove that it's not their fault.

I find this part pretty interesting:

Citing the Internet Phenomena blog, Verizon said that instead of using its ability to connect directly to every broadband network in the country, Netflix has tried to cut costs by relying on a "panoply of content-distribution and other middle-man networks" to reach customers.

It seems like an awfully strange complaint. How is Netflix supposed to "connect directly", and are people not supposed to use content distribution networks? What's the argument exactly on Verizon's side. If Netflix is using a "panoply of content-distribution networks", I would think that'd imply that they should be able to get decent distribution without suffering bottlenecks on their end of things.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Shados]

The evidence shouldn't be too hard to come by. For a while Youtube offered a page showing statistics for your ISP's streaming rate vs other ISPs in the same general area.

I was on FiOS at the time, and the streaming speed was pitiful (could barely stream 360p during peak hours on youtube), while the average in the area was significantly higher. Switched ISPs (yeah, I had a choice at the time), and sure enough, it was all better.

Re: I want to see where this goes

[BorgDrone]

How is Netflix supposed to "connect directly"

By paying Verizon shitloads of money for 'fast lane' access, duh.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[JeffOwl]

I think what Verizon is saying is that instead of Netflix paying Verizon for a direct link between the Verizon (tier 1) network and the Netflix servers, Netflix is using a different Tier 1 provider which probably has a peering agreement with Verizon and therefore Verizon isn't making any money off the supply side, only the consumer side, which just isn't good enough for them.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Charliemopps]

It's more complicated than that. Netflix's speeds on Verizon, or any other carriers, network are determined by peering agreements. There are multiple "Tier1" providers out there... these are the networks that interconnect all the ISPs. Random example: Level3

So you could have a 10gig agreement with AT&T and a 5gig agreement with Level3 and be doing fine. 30% of all peak traffic comes from Netflix. But Netflix has their peering agreement with AT&T so you're all good. Then, suddenly, Netflix switches peering hosts and goes to Level3.

In most cases the content provider would inform you ahead of time. You make peering agreements in concert with each other. "We'll both sign a peering agreement with AT&T for a period of 2 years" The big change with Netflix is they do not make agreements like this. They switch peers without notice.

So when Netflix switches peers they leave the ISP with a 10gig trunk to AT&T that's now severely underutilized. The ISP is reluctant to sign with Level3 because who says Netflix wont just switch peers again? The Tier1 providers are aware of this situation and are using it to their advantage. Particularly Level3. We've no idea what's going on here, but I wouldn't be surprised if Netflix is just as much to blaim her as Verizon.

Netflix has no financial incentive to be friendly with the ISPs and that's what this whole "Fast lane" is about. I don't like the plan but the ISPs concerns aren't just made up. There is a real and legitimate problem with Netflix and it's not just some conspiracy to prevent people from watching movies.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[ArhcAngel]

If Verizon wanted to offer the best experience to their Netflix subscribing users they would allow Netflix to install a streaming server in their server farm. This would save Verizon money and prevent the throttling that happens at the peer junction.

To illustrate imagine 40% of Verizon ISP customers are streaming a movie from Netflix. Without the streaming server the entire 40% have to traverse the backbone which Verizon pays a tier A provider like Level 3 for. Now Verizon, like most USA ISPs oversells the capacity they can accommodate because they don't expect everybody to use their full bandwidth portion simultaneously so to save money they also under purchase back end peering connections so that 40% of traffic just slammed all the connection going from Verizon to their tier A provider slowing traffic for everyone trying to access a connection not on Verizon's network. If you add the streaming server inside Verizon's network that 40% of traffic never leaves Verizon's infrastructure thus negating the need to upgrade their back end connection to accommodate the load. Netflix simply sends any new content to the streaming server when it becomes available. Now this scenario SAVES Verizon/Comcast/etc. money but they insist Netflix pay for the privilege of putting the server inside their network. The only reason they would pass up the opportunity to save money is if they also had a streaming service that competes with Netflix which could potentially make them more than they would save. VOD (Video on Demand) and RedBox Instant are just such services. This is why ISPs should not be content providers.

Re: I want to see where this goes

[O('_')O_Bush]

They did this because Google and VZN were butting heads over whose fault the slowdowns were in several areas around the country (my area, Northern VA, was one of them).

Google supplied pretty damning evidence that VZN had some faulty hardware or was throttling and causing the issues, but VZN was still trying to shift blame to Google. After enough complaints and people leaving FiOS, the problems magically went away.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Letophoro]

I think this is what you were thinking of.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Bengie]

So you could have a 10gig agreement with AT&T and a 5gig agreement with Level3 and be doing fine. 30% of all peak traffic comes from Netflix. But Netflix has their peering agreement with AT&T so you're all good. Then, suddenly, Netflix switches peering hosts and goes to Level3.

Level 3 has stated that this is common issue across the entire Internet, which is why Level 3 has an average peak port utilization of 37%. Level 3 has designed their network to handle large shifts. You can pay Level 3 to handle peering for you or you can do it yourself, but don't come crying when someone changes routes.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[amorsen]

So when Netflix switches peers they leave the ISP with a 10gig trunk to AT&T that's now severely underutilized.

If the ISP is concerned about this, they can just ask Netflix for a caching box. Total cost to the ISP is a couple of ports in a switch, a few rack units, and power. I.e. approximately zero.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Shados]

yes, exactly :) I hadn't been able to find it in a while. Thank you!

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Shakrai]

Can Netflix prove that ISPs are at fault?

The ISPs may be at fault, but Netflix is just begging to be sued with this little PR stunt. Here's an amusing exercise: Impose an absurdly low artificial limit within your LAN (easy enough to do with the QoS tools included in DD-WRT) and see if the Netflix buffering message blames your ISP. If the answer is "Yes" then Netflix likely just lost the lawsuit, irrespective of whatever legitimate problems the ISP may have.

Supposedly they only show the message if a "significant number" (the term isn't further defined) of users at the target ISP are having issues, which may provide them with some legal cover, but I'm skeptical that they can actually prove with a preponderance of the evidence that my slow down is the fault of my ISP. One false claim of such and they're on the hook.

One of two possibilities comes to mind:
1) Some genius at Netflix thought of this without consulting legal.
2) This is a ploy to get sued, then try to use the discovery process to find something damning in the internal decision making process at the ISPs.

#2 is interesting, but I think it's one hell of a gamble. Hell, how many people are using Wi-Fi to stream Netflix, making it vulnerable to interference from anything and everything? Netflix can discern the difference between dropped packets because of congestion and dropped packets because of my leaky microwave and/or neighboring wi-fi network/baby monitor/bluetooth device/etc on the same channel as my AP? With enough confidence to blame Verizon for the dropped packets?

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Shakrai]

Really, you can serve millions of Verizon DSL and hundreds of thousands of FIOS customers with one caching box? That only uses a few ports, RUs, and a few hundred watts of power? At approximately zero cost?

Can I have free co-location services at the local central office too, or do I have to get to Netflix size before that happens?

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Charliemopps]

Verizons Tier1 network is separate from their consumer business. It's illegal for them to do both. They are different in the same way "Verizon Mobile" is different. So they have to pay either way. In fact, I've worked for 3 ISPs and all 3 have had Verizon as customers in that regard. ISPs work in conjunction like that. A simple example: Most phone companies have a peering agreement on 1 phone line and one dataline with their closest competitor. In the event of a large outage, theres a phone and data connection in that building that run off their competitors network and should remain up. No money is exchanged, it's just common courtesy in the industry. They are most used during natural disasters, and it's common for technicians from a rival company to come to the aid of their colleges when they get stranded due to weather and such.

What they mean by that is Netflix has to pay for peering but they've refused to do this in an industry standard way... which is, they go to the ISP and they both sign mutual agreements with one Peer for a period of years. Netflix instead goes with the cheapest provider and signs no deal with the ISPs. The tier1 providers understand this and offer discounts to netflix. Once they switch, they then gouge the ISP. It's a very simple and very effective strategy. This isn't entirely Netflix or Verizons fault. It's both their problem along with the tier1 providers. If anything Verizon in concert with other ISPs should have realized some company would do this sort of thing a long time ago and lobbied to get the FCC to enact rules to cover it. Netflix should have worked within the industry standard framework for these agreements and the Tier1 providers are just being plain evil.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't with Netflix, it's with the ISP's customers who want to access Netflix content. There's a difference. If the ISP can't afford to provide its customers with the data they want at current prices they need to raise their prices and shut the fuck up.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Charliemopps]

So you could have a 10gig agreement with AT&T and a 5gig agreement with Level3 and be doing fine. 30% of all peak traffic comes from Netflix. But Netflix has their peering agreement with AT&T so you're all good. Then, suddenly, Netflix switches peering hosts and goes to Level3.

Level 3 has stated that this is common issue across the entire Internet, which is why Level 3 has an average peak port utilization of 37%. Level 3 has designed their network to handle large shifts. You can pay Level 3 to handle peering for you or you can do it yourself, but don't come crying when someone changes routes.

It is a common problem. But it was something that wasn't really done until Netflix pioneered it. Traffic moves all over, but Netflix is 33% of traffic. That's not just traffic moving, that's re-engineering your entire network overnight. The ISPs were just switching peers and following Netflix for a while but their network utilization is just too large to ignore now. The ISPs should have seen this coming and approached the FCC to enshrine the "Gentlemans agreement" they'd always had with content providers into law. But they hate regulation... so here we are. Now their solution is STILL less regulation in the guise of these fast lanes. It's insanity. They're shooting themselves in the foot. The most direct, common sense solution is to regulate how peering agreements are made. If you're creating 30%+ of all internet traffic and it's not even related to free speech you SHOULD be regulated.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Charliemopps]

So when Netflix switches peers they leave the ISP with a 10gig trunk to AT&T that's now severely underutilized.

If the ISP is concerned about this, they can just ask Netflix for a caching box. Total cost to the ISP is a couple of ports in a switch, a few rack units, and power. I.e. approximately zero.

The cache does no good if both Netflix and the ISPs do not have reciprocal peering agreements. Also, there are a lot of problems with these agreements.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Netflix can definitely prove it, and this is very probably heading to court. They've been gathering very detailed data on this for quite some time now - have a look at their researchers' recent open-source contributions!

Hell, you can even detect which traffic shaping algorithm is in use, and what OS it's running on...

Re:I want to see where this goes

[amorsen]

Really, you can serve millions of Verizon DSL and hundreds of thousands of FIOS customers with one caching box? That only uses a few ports, RUs, and a few hundred watts of power? At approximately zero cost?

Economies of scale only makes it better. Yes, you need more than one box for hundreds of thousands of customers, but it is still the cheapest way to get any kind of bandwidth. The cost is completely trivial when you are Verizon-size.

Can I have free co-location services at the local central office too, or do I have to get to Netflix size before that happens?

You have to get to Netflix size. Small players pay for everything.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[amorsen]

The cache does no good if both Netflix and the ISPs do not have reciprocal peering agreements. Also, there are a lot of problems with these agreements.

That makes no sense. As soon as you ask Netflix for the cache, Netflix will steer traffic coming from your customers to the cache, and the cache will do good.

You still need the bandwidth to download each movie once of course.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Shakrai]

"Completely trivial" != zero, and it's not Verizon's responsibility to subsidize Netflix's business model.

Apparently it's not enough for them to get free bandwidth, when the entire history of settlement free peering has relied on balanced traffic ratios. No, on top of that they want someone else to pay for their rack space, electricity, physical security, and all the other overhead that comes with running a modern data center. Essentially Netflix just wants to take your money and send it directly to Hollywood (after taking a cut for themselves of course) without any of that pesky overhead otherwise known as "running a business".

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Arker]

"Really, you can serve millions of Verizon DSL and hundreds of thousands of FIOS customers with one caching box? That only uses a few ports, RUs, and a few hundred watts of power? At approximately zero cost? "

Millions would obviously require more than one box, but it's still by far the most efficient way to deliver the service the customers already paid you to deliver so why quibble?

"Can I have free co-location services at the local central office too, or do I have to get to Netflix size before that happens?"

You just need to be serving the bits that their customers want in sufficient quantities that it makes economic sense. Probably not quite netflix-sized would be enough. Smaller could certainly work if by some quirk you have a very high percentage of users on a single ISP.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Shakrai]

but it's still by far the most efficient way to deliver the service the customers already paid you to deliver so why quibble?

The quibble is Netflix expecting that someone else absorb the cost of delivering their product. Griping about network neutrality is a red herring. NN has nothing whatsoever to do with the cost of running the data center, and there are very few people not named "Hastings" that would have the chutzpah to suggest it's Verizon's job to provide them with free co-location services.

Great deal for Netflix if they can sucker enough ISPs into doing it though. They don't have to pay for physical security, disaster recovery, rack space, or any of the overhead that every other tech company has to deal with. They just take your money, subtract a small cut for themselves, and forward it directly to Hollywood. Meanwhile they double your rates and you still think they're awesome. Even Apple couldn't get away with doing that....

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Arker]

"The quibble is Netflix expecting that someone else absorb the cost of delivering their product."

Only to the degree that they are expecting someone else to live up their obligations to mutual customers.

Let me explain to you how the internet works in a nutshell, from a business perspective. I pay my ISP. You pay yours. When we talk, we dont have to pay anyone else. (Transit provisions are the responsibility of our providers - they may need to pay someone a portion of what we paid them, but this is not our concern.)

Now if you are an ISP and you want to stand on principle and refuse to colocate Netflix for free, you are within your rights. But the point is you are only hurting yourself, and your own customers, as the cost of carrying the content to your customers, how have already paid you for this service and have a contractual right to see it delivered, would only be lowered by agreeing to it. If you refuse, that's your right, *but it does not excuse you from your obligations to your own customers to transport the bits they request.*

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Shakrai]

I pay my ISP.

For an "up to" connection. That makes no promises whatsoever regarding speed or reliability. So long as they're making a good faith effort you have no right to complain. If they're pocketing your money and providing you with nothing you've got a right to complain, even with the "up to" language, because that would constitute fruad. They're not doing that though, and not even the biggest shrill for Netflix would suggest that they are.

Here's the relevant snippet from the Verizon Online Customer Agreement. It's worth noting that every ISP on the planet has similar language:

"VERIZON DOES NOT WARRANT THAT ANY OF THE SERVICE, EQUIPMENT, OR OTHER EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZED BY VERIZON FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICE WILL PERFORM AT A PARTICULAR SPEED, BANDWIDTH OR DATA THROUGHPUT RATE, OR WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, ERROR-FREE, SECURE, OR FREE OF VIRUSES, WORMS, DISABLING CODE OR CONDITIONS, OR THE LIKE"

Re: I want to see where this goes

[grahamsz]

Surely Verizon can't expect balanced peering when they sell asymmetrical service to their customers. Suggesting they should get paid by Netflix because of the imbalance doesn't seem fair.

And really, if Netflix offered cloud backup service they could probably right a whole lot of that balance while causing even more headaches for isps

Re: I want to see where this goes

[grahamsz]

Netflix almost certainly has done tests on actual residential connections where they control for poor Lan setup.

They can also probably reach a statistical conclusion just fine because those customers with bad wifi setups likely exist on well performing isps as well

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Arker]

Unconscionable terms hidden deep in a contract that no one is encouraged to read and very few have ever seen, 'agreed to' under the duress of a monopoly market. I'll refer you and anyone else with the chutzpah to play that card to the reply in Arkell v. Pressdram.

I pay for internet access and the people I pay have a responsibility to provide it, at the speeds they have promised. I did not ask for and will not accept the substitution of their intranet for the internet, as you apparently think I should be forced to do. If they are not able to provide the service they promise me at this price they should be honest and raise the price, not play disrespectful and fraudulent tricks with my service in attempts to extort third parties.

Just how much Verizon stock do you own again?

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Shakrai]

Unconscionable? I reserve that word for things like murder, rape, or slavery, not mundane nonsense like slow internet service. Hidden deep in a contract? It's right there in their marketing materials. "Up to X mbit/s" What, you expected dedicated internet access for $30 to $60/mo? Best of luck with that. Connections with SLAs cost hundreds to thousands of dollars (my company pays >$1,100 for a dedicated 30mbit/s pipe) and even they don't promise specific speeds to third party networks.

I don't directly own any Verizon stock. I indirectly own some, via the mutual funds in my 403(b), as do you if you've got any sort of retirement account. They're a Fortune 100 company and component of the DJIA, it's hard not to own them if you've got any investment more serious than a certificate of deposit.

P.S., Lose the truetype font, it's obnoxious.

Re: I want to see where this goes

[Shakrai]

Surely Verizon can't expect balanced peering when they sell asymmetrical service to their customers.

Settlement free peering has required balanced traffic ratios since the beginning of the internet. If you want to blow up that ecosystem the onus is on you to explain why your purposed replacement is better, from both a technical and economic sense. And not that it really matters (to that historical context), but Verizon sells asymmetrical service because that's how every consumer grade technology is designed. You think it makes more sense to use the limited bandwidth on a twisted pair connection (DSL) for upload that people would rarely use? Same with DOCSIS, though for different technical reasons (multiple modems trying to talk back to a single CMTS, via disparate paths with disparate noise levels/attenuation) than the DSL bandwidth limitation. The disparity still exists with most FTTH solutions (Google GPON and educate yourself), though less pronounced.

Tell me, what does the average consumer do where slow upload speeds are noticeable, besides uploading pictures/video to Facebook? Don't say "cloud backup" either, because nobody gives a shit if the initial sync takes six minutes or six days, it runs in the background and is totally transparent to most people.

And really, if Netflix offered cloud backup service they could probably right a whole lot of that balance while causing even more headaches for isps

Go for it. I don't think it would have as big of an impact as you think it would (including my porn collection I've got less than one terabyte of data, which would only need to be uploaded once, and realistically the data I truly care about totals less than 50GB) but there's nothing stopping Netflix from trying. Except of course the fact that Mr. Hastings doesn't seem to want to do anything besides cash checks. Diversification of the business? That's crazy talk.

Re: I want to see where this goes

[Shakrai]

Please, demonstrate for me a technology that can tell you with reasonable certainty (preponderance of the evidence is the standard in a civil suit) where packets went missing? Now demonstrate that this technology scales to however many streams Netflix has in operation at a given time, and that they're actually using it every time they display this warning. Can't do those things? Guess what? They probably lose a contested lawsuit, irrespective of how much Verizon/Time Warner/Comcast/Mom & Pop ISP/Frontier may suck in the real world.

Don't take my word for it though. They seem to have backed down. Me thinks that some genius at Netflix didn't run this idea past legal before they put it into production.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Arker]

"Unconscionable? I reserve that word for things like murder, rape, or slavery, not mundane nonsense like slow internet service."

Fortunately the law does not agree with your usage.

They advertise in big letters Internet Service! Xmb per second - then in the fine print it says there is no warranty of any service at all. It's very established law, even in the US, that such a term is unconscionable and if your case relies on it your only hope is to bluff and settle. Companies throw them into their boilerplate anyway on the theory that it cant hurt, after all a LOT of cases go down the bluff and settle route.

"What, you expected dedicated internet access for $30 to $60/mo?"

What I expect is what they advertise (and I do pay significantly more than you posit, btw, not that the exact amount matters.) Internet Access. If they say they are throttling me to a certain pipe-width, they should never throttle me any tighter than that. If their network needs maintenance, that is their responsibility. Backbone transit is also their responsibility. I dont expect 3-9s reliability out of a consumer service but I also do expect them to maintain it in good faith and to maintain the necessary infrastructure and transit arrangements. I expect an occasional outage that is repaired in a timely fashion, but not a deliberate degradation of my service as a lever against a third party.

A business account with SLAs can be required for specific guarantees but consumer service without it still has an implied warranty, that the service provided will be suitable for the purpose for which it was marketed, that it will be maintained approximately as needed. I cant sue them for a single outage, sure. If network congestion degrades my connection occasionally, that's probably not actionable. It would have to be a clear pattern over a period of time before a legal remedy would become available. But it would come available - at least for anyone with the money and the will to plonk down a retainer and play that game.

If they quit providing the service at all, or alter it to such a degree that it is no longer what I signed up for, well, the clause you quoted says they can do that and keep sending me bills as well, and there is no judge in the country that would enforce it. That clause you quoted is a perfect example of the legal meaning of 'unconscionable' btw - similar clauses in contracts in other areas of business have been labeled with that word by the courts repeatedly.

PS - I have no control over the fonts on your computer. If you dont like the one your browser is using, you can change it. I cannot, so complaining to me about it is particularly pointless.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix has no financial incentive to be friendly with the ISPs and that's what this whole "Fast lane" is about. I don't like the plan but the ISPs concerns aren't just made up. There is a real and legitimate problem with Netflix and it's not just some conspiracy to prevent people from watching movies.

If the real and legitimate problem is Netflix not notifying ISPs ahead of time of their business decisions, I have to disagree here. This is all the more reason NOT to have a fast lane. Build better roads, educate your drivers, and raise the speed limit. Do NOT build an artificial "fast lane" because you are too cheap/lazy to do what really should be done.

And in this case, I'm not willing to believe this. It doesn't make business or financial sense for Netflix NOT to notify ahead of time as they WILL lose their customers out to competition.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Voyager529]

If the ISP is concerned about this, they can just ask Netflix for a caching box.

I actually wondered whether it'd be practical for Netflix to offer this at a customer-by-customer level. Give them a magical device that's the lovechild of an AT&T Microcell and a Western Digital MyCloud drive. End users can't access the Microcell at all; they're just widgets hooked up to the router. Have Netflix tie a particular magic box to a particular customer's Netflix account. Then, Netflix can send the user's instant queue titles to the magic box during off-peak hours to help distribute the load. Additionally, some variant of bittorrent-style swarming could help ease congestion on the tier 1 providers by minimizing the amount of traffic needed from them. When users want to watch content from their instant queue, they stream it from the magic box, no buffering, no quality degradation, no need for bits from Cogent during peak hours. Everyone wins.

Re: I want to see where this goes

[amorsen]

Settlement free peering has required balanced traffic ratios since the beginning of the internet.

Verizon does not offer balanced traffic ratios. They should be paying Netflix for the imbalance. Yet somehow it gets twisted so that Netflix has to pay.

Re: I want to see where this goes

[grahamsz]

Netflix could certainly roll out a p2p model like Spotify does. I'd be quite surprised if they haven't already developed a prototype just in case. I'm any event I doubt Verizon will really push the "balanced traffic ratio" argument because there are many ways it could end badly for them

Re: I want to see where this goes

[Shakrai]

Verizon does not offer balanced traffic ratios.

Verizon isn't the one asking Netflix to dispose of a massive amount of traffic. The longstanding model has been sender-pays. You have traffic that you need me to deliver, either to one of my customers or to another network that you can't directly reach? You pay me, or you take a similar amount of traffic off my hands and we call it a wash. That has been the model for peering agreements since the internet first went private. It's a network of networks, you can't reach everybody without relying one or more third parties, none of whom are obligated to work for free.

Reed Hastings wants to blow up the business model that built the internet and he's suckered people like you into becoming his advocates.

Re: I want to see where this goes

[Anonymous Coward]

Trace route? Ping plotter?

Netflix runs from a client if some sort I assume ( I have never used it), they could have some network tools built into it. They must have something to determine the bit rate.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[mgcarley]

"Completely trivial" != zero, and it's not Verizon's responsibility to subsidize Netflix's business model.

Apparently it's not enough for them to get free bandwidth, when the entire history of settlement free peering has relied on balanced traffic ratios. No, on top of that they want someone else to pay for their rack space, electricity, physical security, and all the other overhead that comes with running a modern data center. Essentially Netflix just wants to take your money and send it directly to Hollywood (after taking a cut for themselves of course) without any of that pesky overhead otherwise known as "running a business".

Well hang on a minute - if I have to put a rack in and provide a standard amount of power to it, that's going to cost me... let's say a few thousand a year at each location (for a large provider, let's go with around 8 locations). So let's take $17,000/year per rack * 8 DCs = $136,000/year as the cost for a major player to run 8 racks of caching servers in existing data-centres around the country.

Even with transit bandwidth being as cheap as it is (in major centres at least), for a 10gig link I'm going to be paying (as an ISP)... probably a few thousand a month, but I'm at their mercy when either end of that link (whether their fault or not) inevitably becomes congested. So taking HE.net's advertised pricing of $0.46/mbit * 10gigs = $4,600/month * 8 locations = $36,800 * 12 months = $441,600.

But wait! We're talking about settlement-free peering! Well, with the peering I'm paying for optics and rack-space anyway - though not as much as I'm paying to run a caching box, I'll grant you. The question then is: private or public? Using Coresite public peering as an example we're looking at a mere $6,000 a year for a 10gig link * 8 locations, so only $48,000 or so, or about 1/3 as much as a rack of caching servers. For private peering... who knows what Verizon's (or Comcasts or anyone elses) costs are.

While the figures are merely an educated guess based on prices I've been able to find in Chicago in public facilities which may bear absolutely no resemblance to Verizon/Comcast/etc costs for the same, so far, running a rack full of caching servers is better than transit, but peering is better than running a rack full of servers.

But that then begs another question - the customer getting what they're paying for. If it weren't for all the anti-class-action clauses in ISP contracts, they'd probably be getting sued a lot, and the TV would be full of commercials for lawyers suing ISPs instead of (or more likely, as well as, pharmaceutical companies)... but generally speaking, most ISP customers in the US are getting ripped off big-time. I myself just got a 50mb cable connection (I was on 100mb fiber, but I moved), and I can get 50 (even up to 70mb) on speedtest.net but Youtube won't give me 1080p or 4k on anything (it doesn't stutter or buffer, it simply doesn't offer me the option, even on videos I know to have it - the best I can get is 720p), and Netflix seems to only run at SD. So I'm marginally annoyed about that.

And if it's such a small cost to upgrade the speeds of the peering links, why aren't they being upgraded? And if peering can no longer be settlement-free due to the asymmetrical nature of the traffic, why can't the ISP combine the two most cost-effective options both to improve the customer experience AND hopefully alleviate some of the asymmetry.

Is $136,000-ish a year really going to hurt that much? That's only... what... a couple of thousand extra customers that will need to be signed up to break even on that investment (assuming about $70/mo/sub revenue less expenses). Plus, with caching servers, I could even use that to attract more customers because sites like this one will have people saying things like "choose this ISP if you want to watch Netflix because caching" (probably... that may also not happen, who knows)...

In the grand scheme of things, it's barely a drop in the ocean of expe

Re:I want to see where this goes

[mgcarley]

You are correct in that the speeds are "up to X mbit/s" in the marketing materials and the T&C contain no guarantees of speed/uptime/etc, and that X mbit/s is in no way achievable to the whole wide Internet, but this is a service served from local-ish servers in a country where peering and transit is - especially relative to certain parts of the world - quite cheap and fairly readily available.

ISPs have a responsibility not only to their stakeholders but to their customers to provide something resembling the service being offered. If I pay for a 50mb connection and I can't even stream something at 5mbit/s reliably or at all, that seems to be a problem that only the ISP can solve, and I would go so far to suggest that if the ISP could be breaching their contract if the service is unreasonably less than what they are selling.

I would even think that if said stream works properly when the subscriber is using a VPN but not when using the ISPs standard routes & DNS, that ISP is more or less responsible for rectifying that situation, that is to say, making the VPN less necessary, because then the "best effort" (as most contracts define residential service to be) isn't really "best effort" at all.

It's a given that ISP should have different pipes to different upstream providers - in the US I can reasonably expect a large ISP to have multiple 10gb links to Cogent (due to Netflix) and Level3 (and maybe others), but maybe only a couple gigE links to Telecom Italia or Tata - it all depends where the customers are drawing the content from, and given that in the US Netflix is a rather significant content provider, it should make sense for all sorts of reasons that the ISP should do what it can to ensure it's connectivity to Netflix is halfway decent - buy more transit, peer directly or cache, whichever makes the most financial sense. But do nothing? Not really an option. Especially when they start introducing new tiers or upgrading customer speeds (as my ISP did just this week).

I don't expect to get my full speed to every server in my state, let alone the country or the rest of the world, but there's a lower limit to what I expect as reasonable too, which goes back to that whole thing of getting something even vaguely resembling what I'm paying for, and getting 5% of the plan speed from a domestic source is not really acceptable to me (as a consumer) - if I, in the midwest, can download from a server in India at 5-25mbit/s (based on my own testing, speeds can vary a lot by city), why can't I get Netflix in HD from a facility NJ, GA, CA or TX, which only takes about 5 or 6mbit/s?

By the way, Shakrai, I don't know which part of the country you're in, but $1,100 for 30mb stinks of a ripoff. For that price (including tax) in a not-very-large town (30k-ish), I get more than 3x as much bandwidth (dedicated active fiber with SLA, including the last mile, private/non municipal, gig line which is rate limited at the CPE so speed upgrades take about 90 seconds... but my burst-rates are more than your total BW). It's from a Tier 2 CLEC but the upstream is L3 and Qwest and both Netflix and Youtube work a treat in HD & 4K.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[mgcarley]

Except those with bandwidth quotas. Which is, unfortunately, an increasing percentage of the market.

Re: I want to see where this goes

[mgcarley]

Netflix sh/could send out little testing boxes like truenet.co.nz does to measure speed several times during the day.

Re:I want to see where this goes

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a cable company, administering the head end and our solution was to invite Netflix to provide caching servers to install in our head end. Peering problems solved (well, they're adding additional servers to meet increased demand)! Of course, we're neither Comcast nor Verizon, so we don't abuse our customers.

TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[fredan]

Since we are talking about static content, you can have it cached right next to the consumer, if you want.

BUT.

No one is interested in a solution which not only solve this, but also let anyone to use and cache their content, independent of the provider.

What everybody in the Internet industry is doing instead is trash-talking each other.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I like to cache mine close. Very close. On the hard drive in fact.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[ArhcAngel]

Netflix offers caching but Comcast/Verizon demand they pay for it despite the money they would save by hosting the cache. They're more interested in poaching Netflix's customers for their own streaming alternatives. This is what happens when Net Neutrality is not mandated.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[oji-sama]

However, I feel that "Netflix Trash-Talks" in the summary is an exaggeration..

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[fredan]

I prefer my router so that it can cache the content from all the device on my network. But that's just me.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[fredan]

Netflix has its own caching.
Amazon has their own caching.
Akamai has their own caching.
Limewire has their own caching.

Apache has their own caching http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/ (talking about download their software, not their cache server).
Sourceforge has their own caching http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Mirrors/.

(I think you can add alot more of my examples).

Why have gazillions of differents caching solutions when you only need one, which honor Net Neutrality by design?

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[fredan]

It might be exaggerated but you are seeing stories like this one atleast once a week now.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[ArhcAngel]

I'm confused. First you say caching is a solution but nobody is interested then you admit several streaming sites already use caching and provide 2 links to site mirrors. Then you reference some nebulous utopian solution like I should know what you are talking about. Please enlighten me to this panacea.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[Richy_T]

I don't know why Netflix don't do this. The stream is encrypted anyway.

Actually I do know why they don't do it. The content producers, of course. I guess people will just continue to do their own thing.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[Bengie]

The second parts really isn't caching examples. If it's not 100% transparent to the end user, it's not caching, then it's just mirroring.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[fredan]

What I mean is that nobody is interested in TOECDN as a solution to cache static content, independent of whoever is the origin of the content.

With TOECDN you as an ISP only need one setup of cache-servers not one from each content provider (as in my examples). Easier to maintain and to deploy. And its free for everybody to use. Net Neutrality.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[fredan]

My point with these two examples is that this content is also much cache-able (its static so it doesn't change), so you don't need mirrors anymore!

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[Charliemopps]

Netflix offers caching but Comcast/Verizon demand they pay for it despite the money they would save by hosting the cache. They're more interested in poaching Netflix's customers for their own streaming alternatives. This is what happens when Net Neutrality is not mandated.

No they don't.
https://www.netflix.com/openco...

Specifically: "The ISP network must be located in or connected to the same peering locations as the Netflix network "
Which, on its face, you make it untenable. But then follow the link to their peering locations:
https://www.netflix.com/openco...

and its blank.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[ArhcAngel]

Had you actually clicked the link instead of staring at it you would have been greeted with several pages of peers.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[ArhcAngel]

AH! I see you are unfamiliar with "How Standards Proliferate".

Netflix provides TOECDN to anyone they just call it Open Connect CDN.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[ArhcAngel]

Now there you go confusing him with semantics. I 100% agree which pains me after the mean spirited reply you gave to my other post ;)

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[fredan]

Actually with TOECDN it goes from 14 to 1 solution.

I, as independent content provider can not and are not allowed to use Netflix caching solution. That is not what I call Net Neutrality.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[Charliemopps]

Had you actually clicked the link instead of staring at it you would have been greeted with several pages of peers.

Good point. They need to learn how to design a webpage. Their sites on par with Geocities.

But that still doesn't solve all the other problems with their agreement requirements. It also doesn't solve the problem of netflix switching peers almost at random.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[ArhcAngel]

Actually with TOECDN it goes from 14 to 1 solution.

No, no it doesn't. Unless you mean have the government force everybody to use YOUR solution over all the others which is anything BUT neutral. We don't live in a perfect world and Netflix is by no means a benevolent entity that will solve your problems but they are attempting to provide a solution to the problem their success has caused which is more than any of the cable cos are doing.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[fredan]

Yes it does. Which other cache solutions does allows you as a customer to setup your own cache at home and at the same time is open for anyone to use?

Think of all the websites on the Internet which is run as non-profit. My first thought and example would be wikipedia. They do have alot (alot!) of static content which is the main part of their traffic.

Now add a ISP which is in the third world. Up link via a satellite. How many of the current cache providers would actually place their cache-servers at this ISP? None. To small. On the other hand this is an very good example which will benefit with a cache-server since they do have very limited of bandwidth.

My point is that it will require someone quite big (like wikipedia) to start using TOECDN in the first place. Then the rest will follow.

Have in mind that the concept of TOECDN in released in public domain. Just for the purpose to keep it neutral and for everyone to use.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Equivocating different forms of "caching" is sloppy thinking. I am not sure what your point is, but at this point I can assume it's probably wrong.

I have both

[Thyamine]

I have both Verizon FIOS and Netflix. Here is what I, as a user/subscriber, expect. I pay Netflix to stream movies. I pay Verizon to provide me bandwidth and internet/web access. I don't pay either of them to throttle my connection or do what they want to quality. I pay for X amount, and expect to get it. If Verizon cannot hold up their end of the deal to provide me a pipe, then they aren't doing their job.

Re:I have both

[Anonymous Coward]

FIOS isn't where the problem is... Check for folks on Verizon DSL... woah are they that try to do much of anything on it.

Re:I have both

[ilsaloving]

Fine, it's not FIOS. That doesn't negate the GPs argument. You agree to pay X for a certain service, and expect them to give that to you. Period.

Re:I have both

[alen]

except DSL has always been a shitty tech
you have to be within range of the CO, have newer wiring, and the farther out you go the slower the speeds
they will advertise a max speed like LTE, which you will never see because of old and crappy wiring and people "far away" from the CO because the wiring twists and turns underground

Re:I have both

[bleh-of-the-huns]

I disagree, I do have FIOS, and I get shitty quality streaming for Netflix, HD streams keep buffering or falling back to SD quality.

When I change my fios gateway VPN connection to force all traffic over my VPS, suddenly everything works just peachy (except my xbox live since I do not run miniupnpd on my vpn gateway).

I have a perpetual VPN connection open, that only routes traffic to certain countries through my VPN, all other traffic defaults through my verizon connection (unless I change the config and disable split tunneling)

Re:I have both

[alen]

this doesn't prove anything

verizon and every other ISP will have multiple peering points with different network, with each one routing different kinds of traffic and having different rules
using a VPN just means your return traffic is being routed over a peer that isn't congested because netflix sends all their data over the congested peer

Re:I have both

[ArhcAngel]

I have both Verizon FIOS and Netflix. Here is what I, as a user/subscriber, expect. I pay Netflix to stream movies. I pay Verizon to provide me bandwidth and internet/web access. I don't pay either of them to throttle my connection or do what they want to quality. I pay for X amount, and expect to get it. If Verizon cannot hold up their end of the deal to provide me a pipe, then they aren't doing their job.

You pay for X amount from Verizon down to you. As long as the content is on Verizon's network no problem. Netflix isn't on Verizon's network so Verizon has to get it from the network it is on. Verizon has paid for W not X to that tier A provider so you still get X just not from Netflix because Verizon is only allowed W from the network Netflix is on. you're still getting X from Verizon so you can watch Netflix at W and download something else until you reach X but you will never get X from Netflix as long as Verizon refuses to pay for X from their tier A.

Re:I have both

[unrtst]

except DSL has always been a shitty tech

... the tech isn't shitty, it just has limitations.

you have to be within range of the CO, have newer wiring, and the farther out you go the slower the speeds
they will advertise a max speed like LTE, which you will never see because of old and crappy wiring and people "far away" from the CO because the wiring twists and turns underground

While that's all true, it's also just the last mile, and it is easily and clearly testable**. This means you should be able to determine the speed of your connection from you to the CO (with the ISP's assistance), and it's not going to change based on congestion or time of day (though you could have a crappy copper line that is affected by water damage or other environmental factors... but not congestion).

What this means is that it's actually much more clear cut when there is an issue, as compared to something like cable (a shared medium). If your speeds over DSL vary depending on time of day (ex. congestion), then it's the network's fault, not your line, and it's most likely due to over subscribing the connection from the CO to ISP (after that, it's the same network that FiOS/etc uses).

** I have no idea if they actually disclose the line speed at signup, nor do I know if it's easy for a user to get a test scheduled, and I suspect it is an ugly mess of customer service reps to jump through, but it is technically very easy.

Re:I have both

[Ravaldy]

Exactly. On top of that in the contract they do not guarantee the full speed. Even with a business level FTTN advertised at 28 down and 15 up. The guaranteed amount as per the contract was 12 and 6.

The fact is that he infrastructure in many places isn't capable of sustaining the needs of all house holds using Netflix. This was a non issue at first but as more subscribers realize they can get advertisement free entertainment for 1/10 the cost of satellite and cable, the demand for Netflix has significantly increased.

Re:I have both

[butchersong]

It isn't the last mile fiber that is the problem. It isn't Verizon's network at all really. It is the bandwidth to the CDN Verizon refuses to bolster. I'm not familiar with Verizon's infrastructure but I see no reason why FIOS would be any better than DSL in this regard.

Re:I have both

[alen]

verizon hosts a lot of CDN's that compete with their tv service
itunes, vudu, hulu and at least half a dozen others. i never hear of any problems with them, except for netflix

and that's because netflix has a history of finding low ball bids for their business who then refuse to upgrade peering connections to deliver the content they agree to deliver. and netflix used to use a CDN until last year when they tried to push their own onto ISP's without paying for it. like every other CDN who pays ISP's for access, power and other costs

netflix screams network neutrality to get preferential access for themselves

Re:I have both

[Bengie]

I don't pay to access my ISP's network, I pay to access the Internet. An ISP sells "Internet access".

Re:I have both

[Shatrat]

Except you don't have to be within range of the CO, but within range of the DSLAM. The DSLAMs are fiber fed and can be installed in un-airconditioned cabinets all over town.
It costs a lot of money, but DSL does have the potential to be plenty fast. A big part of the problem is that the companies operating the DSL networks are old telephone companies that are already pretty debt laden and can't afford to spend billions on upgrades (they are already spending hundreds of millions per year on upgrades). They also in some cases don't have a solid inter-state network to backhaul that traffic to Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, et cetera (Lookin at you Frontier) so all that is done through 3rd parties and is very expensive.

Re:I have both

[ArhcAngel]

No need to get mad at me...I'm just the messenger. If you don't like the truth of it you might want to add your voice to those trumpeting Net Neutrality. What An ISP tells you and what they give you aren't necessarily the same thing.

Re:I have both

[Charliemopps]

And if Netflix moves their servers to Russia because it's cheaper? Do you expect the same speeds to their services? Ever notice watching videos from China/Russia doesn't work so hot? Is that Verizons vault? Is it "throttling" because they don't have 10gig trunks leading to Siberia?

That's basically what's happening here. Netflix is using the "Least cost" tier3 provider and switch networks at will. Verizon could have had an adequate agreement with the same peer as Netflix when this all started and if Netflix just switched providers over night (which they do all the time) they would suddenly be throttled because the ISP wasn't expecting 1/3rd of their traffic to suddenly switch networks.

Re:I have both

[fnj]

You pay for X amount from Verizon down to you.

No, just no. With me it's Comcast, but the principle is the same. I pay them for the INTERNET, not for their internal content. That's why they call them INTERNET service providers, not shit service providers. I goddam expect the internet to be provided at the advertised speed. Yeah, I know that congestion I see could be occurring either at source's ISP or mine, but there are ways to narrow down which way the finger points.

Re:I have both

[ArhcAngel]

You can whine and bitch and proclaim all you want it still doesn't make it so. Your ISP sells you "up to x mbps" meaning they can provide anything they want and may occasionally actually give you the top speed you are paying for but unless your contract has a best minimum speed clause you aren't guaranteed anything faster than their slowest connection speed. And if you haven't already read this and this do yourself a favor and take the time. It is enlightening.

Re:I have both

[omnichad]

Unfortunately, everywhere that I've had DSL only had DSLAM's in the CO.

Never going to happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha this suit is never coming, they sure as hell don't want to be in a courtroom over this topic too much risk in having netflix expose them and others.

Re:Never going to happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Discovery would open a can of worms Verzion doesn't want to share I can promise you that.

Don't give in Netflix!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can completely confirm Netflix''s claims. In the last month streaming over FIOS has become unbearable. Last week I couldn't take it and ordered Optimum. Streaming is back to normal and even latency and bandwidth to other services has improved. If you can, dump this bloated monopoly known as Verizon. Why did we break up AT&T to just to create a new monopoly 30 years later?

Re:Don't give in Netflix!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to add my .$02 worth: I *never* have a problem streaming netflix, from the US. I am in the Netherlands when I do this, using a proxy service in New York. Obviously netflix isn't getting congested at my proxy service which I pay for. I also use www.PlayOn.tv UPnP media streamer so I can access content via XBMC on Ubuntu, and PlayOn has a little bandwidth test. The test is to show if there's a minimum amount of bandwidth required and even though it says I'm only getting (about) between 1+ and 2 Mbps across The Atlantic, PlayOn rates it 'Max'. And it works really well. Can't speak for HD tho'.

Now compared to my experience, *anyone* paying all the money Verizon FIOS glass fiber costs monthly and still gets jittery Netflix, obviously Verizon isn't transporting traffic as efficiently as a competent and honest ISP could do. Given such facts, like jittery netflix, why even pay for glass fiber (from and honest and competent ISP) in the first place? What are they providing otherwise? Certainly not bandwidth. (Not to mention they often 'contractually' forbid you from running your own servers out of your house).

Re:Don't give in Netflix!

[Stormy Dragon]

YouTube performance over Verizon has been terrible for about a year now too. It's not a throughput problem, but the connection keeps stalling out at random intervals, requiring you to restart the video every minute or two.

Re:Don't give in Netflix!

[BrookHarty]

I had the same problem with netflix on comcast, used my AWS instance as socks proxy and was back up to HD speeds. I finally bought a vpn service and problem was solved. Also came in handy for content that was geographically limited. Amusing how I can bounce my netflix through multiple VPNs, Socks proxies and always get HD, but when it was straight to netflix over comcast it was crappy quality. Also, no idea why, but apple tv on my buddies comcast would always get HD but his browser wouldn't.

Re:Don't give in Netflix!

[Anonymous Coward]

I only have a choice between Comcast and Verizon :( FUCK U 'MERICA!

Captcha: Redneck

WTF?

Re:Don't give in Netflix!

[labnet]

You could always move to Australia, where I can stream Netflix in HD even though Netflix doesn't even serve Australia!

Re:Don't give in Netflix!

[organgtool]

I can confirm this. I had FIOS (75 MBps) and there were points where I couldn't even get YouTube videos to load at 240p. I found many complaints of other FIOS users, especially in the Northeast, with similar issues. Some users claimed that they could restore the speed by using a VPN or a different DNS server. I felt that I shouldn't have to do that, so I accepted an offer to switch to the other evil ISP empire. My new 25 MBps connection loads YouTube videos much faster than Verizon's 75 MBps connection.

solutiuon to non net neutrality..

[greywire]

Well this seems like a fine "solution" to companies that are trying to get rid of net neutrality.

What if every big content provider started popping up such messages? Let the user know directly that their content is being delivered slower because their net provider is throttling the data.

As long as the content provider can accurately determine this is happening, then what can anybody do to stop them from saying it? Verizon can huff and puff about it but if its provably true can they legally do anything to stop it?

I bet people start caring about net neutrality real fast..

Re:solutiuon to non net neutrality..

[Anonymous Coward]

Take it a step further. Requiring the content providers to pay for high speed connections should be met with the content providers instead asking to being paid by the ISPs to offer quality service to their customers. What a lovely ingenious idea.

Re:solutiuon to non net neutrality..

[silas_moeckel]

Because they would never only pay the parent company's pet provider? Your effectively trying to reinvent aol/compuserve. Since the people do not have real options your stuck with whatever you choice of a handful of providers will offer you.

Re:solutiuon to non net neutrality..

[Anonymous Coward]

The trick is doing it accurately. Having worked in network engineering, on many occassions the issue ends up being some intermediate network. Usually as a result of some carrier choosing the cheapest path possible, or knowingly sending traffic via a non-preferred path. For example, Cogent isn't as bad as they use to be. But, in the past they were well known for heavily overloading some of their POPs. We had a gig-e to them, which turned out to be fed from some POS switch that was oversubscribed 12 to 1. I've heard worse from others, that were on 10G ports, connected to a switch with only 10G of capacity. On the other hand, I've seen Tier 1s simply blackhole or take absurdly long routes for some net blocks. Some cases due to them not even being aware of an issue, or simply ignoring it, like the time I called a carrier about packet loss 3 days in a row, that turned out they had a bad line card.

All that said, I've rarely seen an instance of actual QoS throttling. Craptastic routes, yes. Overloaded peering, many times. These are all fixable issues, but are complicated. Some content networks want truely free open peering as their business is the actual data. Carriers like to keep with the old ways, and charge for peering and transit since their business is moving data. With the exception of, if you are a large enough carrier with equal traffic flow, you'll likely engage in an agreement. There are of course a few carriers that have open policies, HE for example being one. But typically the only networks with open policy are small networks which benefit more from peering, than their peer (if their peer is larger than them).

Re:solutiuon to non net neutrality..

[Ravaldy]

All that said, I've rarely seen an instance of actual QoS throttling. Craptastic routes, yes. Overloaded peering, many times

BS! Whether QoS or just plain protocol based throttling, everyday at exactly 11:30pm my upload speed on my torrents goes from 20Kb/s to 70Kb/s. That's not a coincidence.

Re:solutiuon to non net neutrality..

[Charliemopps]

No other content provider comes anywhere close to Netflix. Netflix provides 33% of all peak traffic. A very distant second is Youtube.

The problem is Netflix is working with the Tier3 providers to extort the ISPs. They peer with one company and then switch. They expect the ISP to switch along with them and the ISPs are refusing. The Tier3 providers are offering netflix discounts to get them to move there and then gouging the ISPs when they try to follow. This particular issue has nothing to do with the last mile (its still a problem, just not related to this particular topic) When 33% of the ISPs incoming traffic switches carriers overnight the ISP has a problem. Unfortunately for the ISPs this is a very complicated issue and nearly impossible to explain to their customers. Even if Netflix's graph was accurate in regards to Comcast it would mean nothing. What did Netflix do at the same time? Were they hitting comcast via the same peers? or did that drop in traffic coincide with peering agreement changes on Netflix's side? I think the latter is more likely the case.

Why Netflix caved..

[PortHaven]

Because now that they have paid Comcast. Netflix has the potential to claim actual financial damages, allowing them to bring a case all the up to the Supreme Court.

Use firefox banner

[Wycliffe]

How is this different than the "use firefox" or "we recommend internet explorer" or "we recommend chrome"
that many banks, websites, etc... have routinely shown. Many websites have gone so far as blocking you
if you didn't have an "approved" browser. I see no reason why netflix can't do the same. They could even
do something like "because we have detected that you will get a subpar experience, we currently don't allow
verizon customers to use our service".

Re:Use firefox banner

[Anonymous Coward]

One better would be to detect the user is using Verizon networks, and then whilst the 'buffering...' message is displayed, start pushing them towards providers that don't tamper with bandwidth, or provide a better service:

Buffering...*

* Tired of buffering? Why not switch from Verizon to network X - a network that supports (network neutrality|wont throttle your connection speed)

Re:Use firefox banner

[Ravaldy]

Big difference. They aren't saying the other browsers suck. They are just saying this is what they recommend.

And the sites that block you forcing you on a specific browser is because they require the browser to be compatible. IE has many MS specific features that Chrome didn't implement for security/stability reasons. Otherwise I haven't seen any web site block my browsers. I use all 3 so maybe I'm extremely lucky or maybe it's because I don't browse www.ilovegannys.com

Re:Use firefox banner

[hendrips]

Netflix's own website goes out of the way to block the use of unapproved browsers. I found this quite annoying.

Re:Use firefox banner

[Arker]

"Many websites have gone so far as blocking you if you didn't have an "approved" browser."

I am sorry, but that is NOT a website, by definition.

Re:Use firefox banner

[Nethemas the Great]

There is logic to that, especially given the dumba$$ way web content is consumed/provided. First you start with content technology--HTML5, JavaScript, Flash, Silverlight, etc.--whose foundations were that of working/hacking around structural problems with content description and delivery. Then you couple that with a plethora of implementations for consuming that content, each with their own twist on how they interpret that content.

For the provider of said content, the resources required to properly support all the variations in this environment is prohibitive. Instead, they choose a subset representing what they consider a reasonable balance between cost and coverage of users. If they were to simply let open the gates to everyone, any variation in the consumer's environment that isn't being perfectly supported will result in a bad experience for that user. This could result in any number of consequences for the content provider--technical support costs, a lost customer, a tarnished brand, etc.. Better to simple define the playground within which their customers can play, and they can support sufficiently well to ensure the consumers have a good experience.

Re:Use firefox banner

[omnichad]

Webkit by any other UA would work just as well.

How is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter which side of the Net Neutrality debate you espouse, how is this newsworthy? *Of course* Verizon is threatening to sue. Look, this is not a case of some random stranger calling the person's baby ugly - this is straight up libel, until proven otherwise (and Verizon requested they prove otherwise, if you care to read the source material). I would expect nothing less of any publicly traded company whose key service was dissed by another publicly traded company in a very public way. I might have expected more professional behavior by Netflix, but given recent history, I should not and will not again.

Re:How is this news?

[Bengie]

Some people have already asked Netflix what they mean and Netflix has stated that their own network and servers are not over-loaded, so the issue must be on the other side.

Here's an analogy for you. I'm wondering why my mail is getting lost or delayed. So I watch each step of the process between my business and the post office. I see that the mail is always getting to the post office on the same day, never delayed or lost. Then I find that my customers are getting mail late or lost.

I would blame the post office.

Re:How is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's map the mail delivery analogy back to Netflix/Verizon issue: Unless you are personally driving your packages to the post office, you have no way of knowing whether the first intermediate step is where the packages were lost. The post office analogy is not a good one, because there is no post office in this case...

Netflix is not (yet) delivering their content directly to the Verizon network for delivery to their end customer. They are handing the content to a low-cost intermediary like Cogent, or Level 3, or some transit network other than Verizon's. That low-cost intermediary hands the content to Verizon, who then delivers it to the customer who requested the content in the first place. What happens between that intermediary and Verizon is another topic entirely. Netflix has no more visibility into Cogent or Level 3 network or interconnection issues than 99.9% of the population has into turbulence affecting a FedEx cargo plane transporting their package from California to New York.

The truth is that Netflix must feel like a victim, but they are venting their frustration the wrong way and possibly at the wrong people. What that banner really needed to say was "We are experiencing network congestion at the moment, but are working hard to improve the quality. Please wait while we....". The name and shame game might get you quick points with the press, but it's also the quickest way to invite lawsuits.

Re:How is this news?

[mgcarley]

Are you sure? Last I read, Netflix and Verizon had signed a direct interconnection deal too. The difference here seems to be that, unlike when the Comcast interconnects took effect, the experience has not been improved for Verizon subscribers.

FUCK YOUR GODDAMNED BETA REDIRECTS !!!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you pieces of shit.

I hope you all die of cancer and that it hurts so badly you
plead with a god who doesn't even exist to bring death so your
suffering can end.

People DO NOT WANT to be redirected, what the FUCK is wrong
with you idiots ?!?!?!?

Buffer Bloat problem, maybe?

[haapi]

Is buffer bloat -- the over-buffering many ISPs do in the hopes of giving better last-mile performance, but which actually breaks TCP's internal throttling mechanisms -- part of what is at fault, here?

Re:Buffer Bloat problem, maybe?

[Bengie]

Buffer bloat exasperates congestion by causing more extreme swings between over-saturated and under-saturated, but there shouldn't be congestion in the first place. Netflix is not attempting to send data at your full connection speed, except for the fraction of a second for initial buffering. Most of the time, they're only attempting to send 2mb/s

There's No Proof...

[Stormy Dragon]

In the US, it doesn't matter if there's no proof that Verizon is responsible for Netflix's issues. As the plaintiff, it would be Verizon's burden to show that there is proof that they aren't.

Mediacom with same message

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been getting this same message with Mediacom lately. I'd say it started a little over a month ago. ...other streaming services seem to work fine

Re:Mediacom with same message

[mgcarley]

I'm streaming NFLX right now on Mediacom (So-IL) but have not seen that message. It refuses to stream in HD though, even on a 50mb connection. Traceroutes suggest NFLX traffic is coming from Chicago via Level3 then AT&T rather than directly by Level3 for no apparent reason.

Choice.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The source of the buffering problem faced by Netflix customers is almost certainly not congestion in Verizon's network, but most likely congestion on the connection that Netflix has chosen to use to reach Verizon's network, David Young, Verizon's vice president for federal regulatory affairs, wrote in a blog post on Wednesday."

I.e. They didn't pay us enough to use our un-throttled connection, er fast-lane.

Simple solution

[Charcharodon]

The solution is Netflix and everyone else needs to let you buffer based on your available bandwidth. If your connection is too slow to watch the HD movie you have paid for then it should pretty much download the whole thing and then let you watch it.

The whole concept of live streaming accross the internet has always been a stupid idea for pre-recorded non-live media consumption

Re:Simple solution

[Charliemopps]

The solution is Netflix and everyone else needs to let you buffer based on your available bandwidth. If your connection is too slow to watch the HD movie you have paid for then it should pretty much download the whole thing and then let you watch it.

The whole concept of live streaming accross the internet has always been a stupid idea for pre-recorded non-live media consumption

Most of the ISP industry groups confronted Netflix with this very idea. They refused.

Re:Simple solution

[Ichijo]

Taking this a step further, Netflix should allow you to schedule the download(s) to happen overnight, and ISPs should exclude the overnight bits from their bandwidth caps as a form of bandwidth management similar to "unlimited nights and weekends" cell phone plans.

Re:Simple solution

[Anubis IV]

The solution is Netflix and everyone else needs to let you buffer based on your available bandwidth.

They already do that. For users with crappy connections, Netflix will, at an additional expense, deliver fully-buffered, full-resolution videos to your mailbox in the form of a disc, strange as that may sound. ;)

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."

The whole concept of live streaming accross the internet has always been a stupid idea for pre-recorded non-live media consumption

Joking aside, "stupid" in what sense? Honest question. Did you mean technologically? As a use case? In some other way? I'm genuinely interested, since to me, it seems that it makes a good deal of sense.

As a business, Netflix wants its service on as many devices as possible. Instant streaming means that the device only needs to be able to store a few seconds or minutes of footage, rather than an entire file, thus opening the service up to cheaper devices that have less in the way of storage. It means people only need to buy something like a Roku or Chromecast, rather than something resembling a Tivo.

And for the user, it makes sense as well, since the same sorts of reasons I don't like cooking at home (e.g. I have to decide what to eat in advance, I have to take more time to get it ready, if I grab a lot so I have more variety to choose from it ends up being wasteful since much of it will expire before I get to it) apply to why instant streaming makes a good deal of sense for a user. It lets them choose what to watch at the time that they feel like watching, and it also ensures that nothing that was cached has expired already, which decreases the total amount of bandwidth consumed. Let people download in advance and they will, even if they never end up watching it.

I agree that it's wholly unnecessary to provide instant streaming, since we can (and have) gotten by with far less, but the options it opens up seem to provide a lot of benefits as an alternative to effectively just downloading the file in advance.

Re:Simple solution

[Anguirel]

Probably at the behest of the content creation industry. The MPAA wouldn't want you to have too much of the movie at once. Then you might be able to save it and distribute it.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

This assumes the ISP is consistent with their bandwidth and not deliberately routing selected portions to network choke points. There are multiple reports above of how directly Netflix traffic through VPN providers suddenly makes their video streams stable. This points to deliberate action by Verizon, who happen to own the competitor Redbox as well as having competing video on demand service...

Lots of weasel words from Verizon.

[fahrbot-bot]

From TFA:

There is no basis for Netflix to assert that issues relating to playback of any particular video session are attributable solely to Verizon, according to the letter. ... The source of the buffering problem faced by Netflix customers is almost certainly not congestion in Verizon's network ...

I'm not saying either Netflix or Verizon is right or wrong, but given the greed displayed by many (most?) ISPs, wanting to double-dip from the money trough, I'm presently inclined to side with Netflix.

Consumers don't always have choices...

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the fundamental problems here is that consumers don't always have a choice of ISP. At best, most can choose between two local monopolies, so... yeah.

Verizon is to blame proof.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have FiOS 75gig down and 35gig up. A few months ago I noticed that Netflix was dog slow as before it wasn't. I'm paying Verizon big money for internet. This is the same as when Verizon got involved at stopping their customers from going to different sites because of piracy reasons and enforcing fines to be paid directly to Verizon. Same damn program. Google fiber is what I'll be moving towards when my area gets it.

Ok, let me get the math right:

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon is asking customers to buy something like 10Mbps download speed and an order of magnitude less of upload speed. Now Verizon gets "congested", and they claim a surplus of content generated by upload to its network being responsible for that and want to get paid extra for that upload content.

What are they billing their customers for then, if it does not include actually downloading stuff from others? Looking at the Verizon billing page or what? And that is going to saturate the bandwidth they are paying for?

Re:Ok, let me get the math right:

[Arker]

"Verizon is asking customers to buy something like 10Mbps download speed and an order of magnitude less of upload speed. Now Verizon gets "congested", and they claim a surplus of content generated by upload to its network being responsible for that and want to get paid extra for that upload content."

You got it. Nice scam huh?

I got nominal 4gb up, that's the max available in my area, and it's not always delivered. In a lot of larger markets I have researched even this is not available - I see people with 50+ down and only 1 or at most 2 up. This is because ISPs in this company are typically NOT really ISPs, they lack the knowledge or the culture to be one, they do not understand the internet in some cases and when they do, they dont like it. They do not WANT to be in the business, frankly, and are quite uncomfortable with it. That's why you see them advertise the crap out of high download speeds but flat out refuse to offer any significant upload. Their mental model is not that of an ISP but of a cable company, and they dont want their customers to be internet nodes, but passive 'consumers' only.

Then, having condemned their customers to a second-class imitation internet from the start, they then turn around and complain that their backbone connections are not utilised symmetrically? Well of course they are not. The conditions imposed guarantee they will not be. The gall to turn around and use that as an excuse to shake down their upstreams... unbelievable.

The worst part is there is no effective competition most places and customers are trapped. If the rest of the internet simply cut off peering to ISPs that do this instead of dealing with them... most of the US would no longer have access to the internet. A few would have a choice... between Comcasts walled-garden and Verizons.

Trash Talk?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Verizon network is crowded"

I see no mention of Verizon's mother in this quote. I find the claim of trash talk to be exaggerated.

hilarious and definitely expected

[slashmydots]

Net neutrality always seemed so one sided unless you have an imagination like mine and apparently Netflix's. It's always stated as "demand money and there's nothing they can do about being throttled." Yeah, except you're the content provider and you can send whatever messages you want on-screen, in an e-mail, etc. One little "if you want better quality and buffering speed, switch to someone other than Verizon" message and suddenly Verizon is the one losing millions.

This is how they kill Net Neutrality

[tpstigers]

By making the consumers WANT it to die.

Netflix backed down

[Charliemopps]

Netflix already backed down: http://time.com/2848782/netfli...

"Trash Talk"

[FuzzNugget]

I don't think that means what you think it means. Trash talk is untrue and inflammatory. Netflix' wording is anything but and actually pretty conservative.

The Verizon network *is* crowded because they're willfully neglecting to build out the infrastructure as they should be.

Real time streaming for everyone at once is broken

[c0d3g33k]

The elephant in the room: Requiring streaming for every customer simultaneously with no option for offline playback is a broken model with respect to how the internet works.

Granted, since any customer can arbitrarily choose any item in the Netflix library for viewing, the capability for streaming in real-time needs to work decently well. In practice, however, only the things in "My List" are likely to be viewed by a given customer, so downloading to a local cache would allow playback at optimal quality without needing ideal network performance.

It seems to me the intense desire on the part of Netflix and the "rights holders" for full control, maximum monetization and the deep rooted fear that someone might figure out how to make a copy is the real reason this is even a problem.

I would have no problem with a Netflix client that incorporated some sort of DVR-like functionality so that items of interest could be added to a local queue (sorry - queue is a deprecated term - My Local List). That would be wonderful for situations where the available network is sketchy (eg. hotel, coffeeshop) or not present (airplane, campsite, beach, etc). Rampant sharing could be minimized by allowing only one (or a few) devices to have the locally cached content, and requiring a network connection to download or release a particular item. Or if that's too complicated, just allow a limited number of authorized devices per account that can cache the same content.

I think enough customers would take advantage of this to alleviate the problems caused by real-time streaming and take a lot of power away from the intermediaries.

Dig safe, lots of new cable installs

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been finding many angry homeowners getting COMCAST! reinstalled, where it had been dropped for Fios.

Also Verizon doesn't give a fuck about thier fiber it feels, No tracer with ANY service, and won't respond to calls about conduit with a fiber line thick as My fist running in it... Lots and lots of fiber line hits with no one to blame but themselves.

I alerady know Verizons excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon has an interesting way of dealing with arrangements they do not like. They blame the other guy.

In my company we are dealing with two separate Verizon/Cogent peering issues. We have an office with a 100mbit cogentco and an office with 100mbit Verizon eth handoff. The transfer between the two offices is terrible. I mean for hours the max throughput we can get between them is less than 5KB/sec with long periods of packet loss. In another office with Cogent back to that same place with Verizon is a little better but not great, average of about 20Mbit/sec. Those same offices have no problems with our other offices with various carriers other than Verizon. Only our 2 Verizon Cogent places suck.

This problem has gone on for almost 2 years. I've been on the phone with each carrier more than I should have . The bottom line is the peering point where Cogent meets Verizon in each of these areas is way over-saturated and Cogent has shown us some data to indicate they have done everything they can do to increase the throughput there but the bottom line is Verizon has to upgrade their end. Verizon feels it is not their problem and only offered that we switch our Cogent offices over to Verizon.

We are a customer of both carriers and our transfers are direct from us to us so it is really hard for them to pass the blame but they are.

If Verizon does not like the deal they are getting, they will and do actively limit or will not upgrade peer points and the other carrier will be blamed. When they say it is not their issue that a peering point is saturated, they mean it. They will not do anything about it and expect you to complain to the other carrier. I bet this same exact thing is happening with Netflix.

WTH are Verizon customers paying for?

[mosb1000]

The problem is the way they do their accounting, people pay a monthly rate no matter what, and every bit they deliver is written down as an expense. Verizon doesn't feel they are obligated to actually provide the service their customers are paying for. I'm not even sure what they think their customers are paying for. They will readily admit that 30% of their peak traffic is Netflix, but somehow it never occurred to them that some customers might be paying them $120/month so they can have access to Netflix. Also, if Netflix can deliver this service $8/month (most of which is spent buying content), it's hard to believe Verizon can't keep up with them for 15 times that amount! In reality, there's a bunch of shady nonsense going on here.

If Verizon doesn't like government regulations, they probably shouldn't be such total assholes to their customers. You'd think that the geniuses running that company would have the foresight to realize their monopoly is only secure as long as their customers are happy, but instead they are pulling this crap.

If you prefer a free market solution, we could pass a law requiring ISPs to charge per GB delivered. Then they'd get the message that their customers are paying for data, not whatever the fuck Verizon thinks they're providing. But either way, Verizon is totally in the wrong here.

Re:WTH are Verizon customers paying for?

[DamnOregonian]

Verizon is in the wrong from the perspective of their Netflix customers, I agree.

https://www.netflix.com/openco...

Should I also be able to force Netflix to peer with me?
Should every company in my building with "eyes" (customers) be able to force Netflix to peer with them?

I can't defend Verizon's business choice to refuse to address the needs of some large portion of their customer base, but I, as Network Engineer for a smaller ISP, can say with absolute certainty that forcing peering arrangements is ridiculously bad. It's equivalent to forcing a gas station operator to have fittings for every possible form of vehicle gas receptacle, with nothing to standardize it. You *have* to let the market determine these sorts of things, otherwise, we need a new bill in the legislation for every network we feel is important enough to circumvent the freedoms of the market.

Re:WTH are Verizon customers paying for?

[Pinky's Brain]

What if there is a single standardized receptacle and fuel, but it's actually the pump holders who want to force a multitude of ones?

Re:WTH are Verizon customers paying for?

[Anonymous Coward]

And once they start charging per GB, the price per GB becomes the issue. You STILL have to pay them what they ask, they are still a monopoly provider, you will still get shit service.

In Australia, we have data caps, and in many cases they are stupidly low because our monopoly providers can get away with it, usually charging in both directions (up and down). So, be careful what you wish for.

Re:WTH are Verizon customers paying for?

[mosb1000]

There's no need to require Verizon to peer with Netflix. That isn't even what Netflix wanted. But if Verizon (or any ISP) has ports that are saturated during peak times, they could be required to upgrade them in order to keep up with customer demand. And they could be prohibited from charging their peer for their internal upgrades.

You see this a lot as industries mature. The initial developers are eager to roll out their technologies in order to make money and benefit everyone. Then later on they get bought up by others who are looking at how to make as much money as possible by any means necessary. Eventually, it gets so bad the government has to pass consumer protection laws and everyone has to fill out a bunch of paperwork to get anything done. Then the industry stagnates.

When providers have a monopoly, there's no way to let the market decide. So you have to either bust up those monopolies, or give them a whole bunch of rules to follow. Usually the government goes with the rules, because that's really what they're all about.

Re:WTH are Verizon customers paying for?

[Anonymous Coward]

They will readily admit that 30% of their peak traffic is Netflix, but somehow it never occurred to them that some customers might be paying them $120/month so they can have access to Netflix. Also, if Netflix can deliver this service $8/month (most of which is spent buying content), it's hard to believe Verizon can't keep up with them for 15 times that amount! In reality, there's a bunch of shady nonsense going on here.

It's more complicated and mired in greed and bullshit than most of us will ever know. Most of that monthly pricetag comes from sports. Sports outfits rape cable companies pretty bad, so bad to the point that they have to rip off their own customers to pay it back. That's just layer 2 in a 20000 layer greed burrito. Not to mention that some "capitalists" are smart enough to buy ownership stake in all the companies that are ripping each other off so that they profit from the same rape 100's of times.

Look at Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast is really fast, Verizon is slow... but then Netflix pays a ransom to Comcast and does not to Verizon. Maybe they are related?

How is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

"this is straight up libel, until proven otherwise"

Um, while there are some nutjob countries that force people to prove what they're saying is true (the UK I believe is one) here in the US I think it works exactly the opposite, those bringing the lawsuit must prove that the party they are suing is lying or acting with "with reckless disregard of whether [their statement] was false or not".

Go Netflix!

[lynvingen]

Verizon should get off their lazy asses and spend more effort on improving their networks and customer service than fighting the truth. If they choose take the crazy route with the lawyers, then welcome, the Streisand effect may actually shine some light on their profit maximizing business practices.

Do the ISPs need to know what goes through their n

[guspasho]

I've heard mentioned that Netflix should adopt a P2P model using BitTorrent in order to circumvent ISP throttling. (Maybe I've got that wrong. I'm not terribly informed.)

But that got me thinking. Could we, and big providers in particular, sort of collectively force network neutrality on the ISPs by encrypting everything, so that it's impossible for the ISPs to know what the packets are, only that they're supposed to be delivered to such-and-such a place? Would that work? And what would it take to make it happen? Or is there a big reason why it can't be done that I don't know about?

Re:Do the ISPs need to know what goes through thei

[Areyoukiddingme]

But that got me thinking. Could we, and big providers in particular, sort of collectively force network neutrality on the ISPs by encrypting everything, so that it's impossible for the ISPs to know what the packets are, only that they're supposed to be delivered to such-and-such a place? Would that work?

Not really, no. It works when ISPs are interfering with traffic using deep packet inspection, but they're unlikely to be bothering in this case. They know where Netflix traffic enters their network. They simply degrade ALL such traffic, regardless of its contents, knowing they're mostly catching Netflix packets in the process. If that's not what they're currently doing, it's certainly something they could do. Encryption then doesn't help at all.

VPN evidence indicates that's precisely what they are doing. VPN forces a change in route, so traffic from Netflix enters Verizon's network from an unusual direction. Magically, no "congestion". It's artificial, it's anticompetitive, and it's a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

And no prosecutor has the nerve to do anything about it.

All this exciting economic debate and no-one has m

[shilly]

On the whole, I preferred the FT spat, but it was a bit drier as a read, I suppose

traceroute...

[Larry_Dillon]

Wouldn't it be a fairly simple thing to pinpoint the congestion and only shame Verizon if it's in their network or at an under-sized interconnect? Netflix might know (or care) more about Verizon congestion than Verizon does.

Re:Do the ISPs need to know what goes through thei

[Arker]

See the other reply for why this is not a panacea BUT;

The VPNs he mentions are encrypted channels, but they are more than that, as they also force a route through the VPN provider. They are inefficient for general use because as long as the networks are being administrated properly the VPN will actually degrade your performance - when it solves performance problems instead that is a smoking gun showing that your ISP is so badly misconfigured it makes sense to assume malice.

It's not a cure-all but encrypting everything whenever possible should be considered minimal best practice anyway. Since the early 90s I have said that everything should be encrypted, it is and always was ridiculous that internet traffic carrying all sorts of sensitive data (starting with usernames and passwords of course) just gets passed around in plain text, like if we were using snailmail and everything went out on a postcard, no envelopes in site. But encryption is hard, and cycles were short back then, and everyone said oh dont worry about it we can always tack that on in the application layer later. Which almost never happens.

Well at least today a lot more people are thinking about security, and we'll probably see more and more traffic incorporating encryption at one level or another, and the more that happens the less of a moral hazard the internet will be for those who administer and control the networks.

If you dont have it already, go get this:
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Disney Has Taken ABC Away from You

[Anonymous Coward]

Same shit, different decade.

Neutrality wars

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect something like "selective avialability notice" and ""XY provider premium service" to be used as a negotiating tactics by more content-provider companies. Breaking net neutrality is a double-edged swors.

I use Vudu and Verizon FiOS

[OldHawk777]

IMO Verizon has congress and SC-judges on their side; So, NetFlix, Vudu, and US are the lossers.

Bit two faced for Verizon

[Bitbyte_x]

So Verizon say we're capping how much bandwidth we give to you unless you pay because the service you offer is more intense then http ........ Then when Netflix pays for QOS quality of service and STILL gets the horrible bandwidth ...... And to top it off They are not allowed to tell their paying custom that quality is not assured because Verizon are not keeping their end of the deal ? Kinda looks like Verizon is just money grabbing and annoyed because they have been caught out.

Preserving the disinformation infrastructure.

[pupsocket]

Verizon leads the campaign to preserve the television industry in the United States.

As broadcast television and real-time cable approach irrelevancy, the incumbents in the video-distribution business seek control over cached video programming.

The right to charge extra would affirm Verizon FiOS as a cable television operator with the right to charge to carry even cached content.

Not coincidentally, real-time one-to-many propaganda operations like Fox News depend on this campaign to turn Internet providers into a small subset of the digital data transport industry.

You see?!!?! It's true that

[fuzzy2k]

corporations are people. Looks like they are teenagers and have learned that if someone insults you, you can sue them. Teen years are the awkward ones. WIll these kids ever grow up?