Slashdot Mirror
Cable Companies: We're Afraid Netflix Will Demand Payment From ISPs
Dega704 (1454673) writes While the network neutrality debate has focused primarily on whether ISPs should be able to charge companies like Netflix for faster access to consumers, cable companies are now arguing that it's really Netflix who holds the market power to charge them. This argument popped up in comments submitted to the FCC by Time Warner Cable and industry groups that represent cable companies. (National Journal writer Brendan Sasso pointed this out.) The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), which represents many companies including Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cablevision, Cox, and Charter wrote to the FCC:
"Even if broadband providers had an incentive to degrade their customers' online experience in some circumstances, they have no practical ability to act on such an incentive. Today's Internet ecosystem is dominated by a number of "hyper-giants" with growing power over key aspects of the Internet experience—including Google in search, Netflix and Google (YouTube) in online video, Amazon and eBay in e-commerce, and Facebook in social media. If a broadband provider were to approach one of these hyper-giants and threaten to block or degrade access to its site if it refused to pay a significant fee, such a strategy almost certainly would be self-defeating, in light of the immediately hostile reaction of consumers to such conduct. Indeed, it is more likely that these large edge providers would seek to extract payment from ISPs for delivery of video over last-mile networks." Related: an article at Gizmodo explains that it takes surprisingly little hardware to replicate (at least most of) Netflix's current online catalog in a local data center.
"Even if broadband providers had an incentive to degrade their customers' online experience in some circumstances, they have no practical ability to act on such an incentive. Today's Internet ecosystem is dominated by a number of "hyper-giants" with growing power over key aspects of the Internet experience—including Google in search, Netflix and Google (YouTube) in online video, Amazon and eBay in e-commerce, and Facebook in social media. If a broadband provider were to approach one of these hyper-giants and threaten to block or degrade access to its site if it refused to pay a significant fee, such a strategy almost certainly would be self-defeating, in light of the immediately hostile reaction of consumers to such conduct. Indeed, it is more likely that these large edge providers would seek to extract payment from ISPs for delivery of video over last-mile networks." Related: an article at Gizmodo explains that it takes surprisingly little hardware to replicate (at least most of) Netflix's current online catalog in a local data center.
What part of that suggests they're afraid Netflix will threaten them?
Reminds me of the stories of panhandlers begging at intersections who get picked up by their chauffeurs at the end of the day to go back to their mansions.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Don't discount the misplaced priorities of the masses.
Prhaps they don't affect change at the ballot box, but the thongs that really matter to them can drive them into a frenzy.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
This might be reasonable if it was coming from a group who hadn't spent huge sums of money fighting to stop legislation that would have made it illegal for either netflix or comcast to charge for the specific route. That being said if Comcast, Time Warner, etc. make Netflix pay to be inside their networks now and in the future Netflix turns around and says "if you don't pay us to stay we will remove our servers from your networks and your customers will have to get Netflix through standard routing" then I have no sympathy for them but they may be right in worrying.
They are dreaming. We are thinking about throttling them here right now. Why should we let all those other sites suffer due to one service using nearly 75% of our bandwidth. Let them fix their busted streaming model to include some caching ability. I mean really how hard would it be to include some kind of encrypted cache that would store media for a time. They could even sell a DVR service and make more money. The whole premise is a joke considering how its went for them so far with other cable companies.
Netflix is perhaps the most ruthless corporation to have ever existed. They will stop at absolutely nothing to dominate the economy. In a year or two stopping them will be impossible. We must act now, otherwise it will be too late.
Companies that are virtual monopolies (south park pointed this out) exist in local areas. I can drop netflix and get hulu, or whatever, no matter where i am. But if verizon is the only place that has dsl in my town, or a cable co dominates the market in a city and the dsl is a joke by comparison, i'm fucked. period. netlix can ask for money, perhaps. But comcast for example can simply unflap its nipple-cover and rub that shit raw, because there is no actual competition for real reals. any competitor can offer online video streaming, and there are a whole bunch i can choose from. i happen to have netflix, but i also use hulu and other services too. i pay for what i use and i'm fine with it. But when it comes to ISP choice, i have 2 choices. dsl that is barely enough to have one stream coming in, or one other option that is way more expensive. i choose the expensive one because a: i'm a nerd, and b: throwing another 100 dollars a month at dishnetwork or whoever seems like a huge waste of money :)
So it's only ok when you do it, then? What a hypocritical joke. I have a better idea: just focus on providing the most reliable bandwidth on the network for your customers as possible and let them provide the content.
Comcast (among others) is afraid Netflix has the power to force them to pay money? Nice theory, but yet here in reality, remind me again who is it that is actually paying who?
you've had all the advantages to do it for years... any of the major cable companies has a huge advantage if they wanted to release a video on demand service.
but you're so determined to suck off the TV model that you've crippled yourself.
And now you're paying the price.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It is like carmakers such as GM / Ford / Chrysler are saying that they are afraid of the DMV start charging them
Translation: We'd do this to a small company in a heartbeat, and we're really disappointed we didn't kill net neutrality before there were enough big players to fight us on this. Unfortunately we have to make ourselves out as the victims, again.
These guys will do anything to keep their monopolies, and want to be sure they can do anything they want to milk customers.
As usual, this is lobbyists and lawyers and PR people making their clients out to be the poor downtrodden victim here.
And, of course, the FCC being totally sympathetic to the plight of these poor, downtrodden monopolies, I'll be surprised if they don't give it to them.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I guess if Netflix was doing something better than me at a cheaper price I would be worried about my customers demanding it too.
In a sense this is already happening, Netflix is charging me per month and it was so good that I stopped paying for cable. No commercials and for the small amount of time I actually spend watching TV in a given day it is totally worth it. So now Netflix gets my money and the Cable company does not. (Well they still provide network access.)
Suck it comcast.
To extort money from someone, you need to threaten them with something. Netflix has no leverage because their customers will most often have no choice in ISPs.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Cable companies have been gouging customers for decades (high prices, low speeds, low quotas, even worse in Canada), they're trying to extort streaming services. They're afraid of competition and are doing everything they can to stop them instead of competing.
The problem is ISPs are also TV providers in most cases, something that should never have been allowed. Of course they'll try to protect their TV business. Here in Canada (Montreal), Both Bell and Videotron sell internet and TV services, why do you think they have such ridiculous quotas? 60GB is not that much, especially when watching Netflix.
ISPs should welcome those servers since it will cut down on traffic, not charge Netflix.
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
No, they were bullying us!
It makes no sense to people who know the situation, but maybe for a split second they can confuse someone who doesn't know the situation.
God spoke to me
The quality of content available on Netflix has been in general decline for years, mostly because of licensing problems. I get all of my content from bittorrent -- I don't have to worry about streaming problems, I have access to a much broader library, and there are no monthly fees. Netflix can't hold a candle to that. Of course, if the content producers were smart, they'd fix this. But they're not. They're greedy and short sighted. Would I pay $10/month to be able to watch (almost) any movie? Absolutely. I'd pay $50 a month, or more to be able to do that without ads. But why should I pay to have access to a limited library that's DRM encumbered when I can get whatever I want for free? Netflix is no more a threat to cable companies than the internet is. In fact, it's less of a threat. The real threat to the media industries is short term greed and licensing that doesn't make sense. Give me a legal option that will let me watch whatever I want to and I'll pay handsomely. If that option isn't available, fuck the studios, I'll take it on my own terms. They don't own distribution anymore. By pretending they do, they're only hurting themselves.
Don't worry.
We'll just pirate the shit out of the video content if the service isn't implemented in a way we like.
The network infrastructure along with phones lines, etc. is paid for by the people. Yet ISPs are abusing said infrastructure by limiting speeds amongst other things. They should be fined hundreds of thousands per day until they either a) provide the service in a proper manner or b) FUCK OFF
If you believe this, then you're falling for the exact same two-faced argument the cable providers said to the FCC back during the first net neutrality debate. I.e. they told the FCC net neutrality will absolutely DESTROY infrastructure investment, and did an about-face and told Wall Street that it wouldn't put a dent in investment.
"Fool me once...shame on...shame on you. Fool me, can't get fooled again!"
[quote]Related: an article at Gizmodo explains that it takes surprisingly little hardware to replicate (at least most of) Netflix's current online catalog in a local data center.[/quote]
Actually the Netflix openconnect boxes do not contain all the catalog, they contain the same (popular) content in most of the formats, resolutions, and bandwidths that are also popular (from 1080p HD 7.1 Dolby audio for your 100" TV, to something a lot smaller and lower bandwidth for your tiny screen iPhones). Netflix has very good algorithms predicting what people are watching (and will watch; you give them your list :-) and they have good information as to the format(s) people are accessing. So, they have dozens of versions of each episode of Orange is the new Black. And, perhaps, no version of a B&W 1950 movie that is only watched twice a year (it will be streamed directly from one of NetFlix's POP).
My first thought upon reading TFS was that it would be as asinine an idea for NetFlix to charge ISPs for access to its service as it would for ISPs to charge NetFlix for access to its customers.
Both of those things are such obviously bad ideas that there's no reason anyone would realistically need to worry about them.
ESPN is the most expensive cable channel. It accounts for the largest chunk of your bill. I have never watched ESPN and don't plan to. Why can't they go with a subscription model like HBO?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The biggest load of BS I've read all day.
Netflix is the one being forced to pay the ISPs right now, not the other way around.
Netflix cannot demand a payment from the ISPs, saying it will degrade it's service otherwise, since it needs the ISPs to deliver the service in the first place. Their whole argument can be mirrored, that's how you know it's BS.
Isn't that what consumers pay Netflix for (and justly so!)? And where the hell would that work? If the ISP didn't pay the bill, then the service would fail and the consumer wouldn't pay their part of the bill either. These guys are fucking insane. A chimp eating carrots out of his own asshole makes more sense.
Reality: cable companies are afraid of Netflix because they fear the day they lose the competition with them.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Many people only have one real choice for an ISP (in USA) and as such the websites have no control. If they said they wouldn't provide access to Comcast customers, then the websites lose those customers. The customers can't simple switch ISP to gain access to the website. The threat has no teeth. On the other hand, if Comcast said pay or we will block your content, the website has to agree. There's no other way to reach those customers.
Is it a requirement that cable company employees (probably above the level of grunt) must be utterly despicable {socio|psycho}paths, or is that the industry just doesn't attract anyone the rest of us wouldn't be better off without?
Fascinating.
A whole article on their CDN boxes and not one mention of the OS. I'm surprised. It's FreeBSD.
Netflix is going to bend internet providers over?
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
So why are they being comcast bitches?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Whether it's the ISPs or the big content providers: The bottom line is that eliminating net neutrality would cement the power structure and disallow smaller competitors to rise. It would essentially undermine the concept of free trade and equal footing for everyone to compete in a free market.
In the end, what would happen without net neutrality is that big content providers would have to pay ISPs. Either in form of protection money ("shame if anything happened to your fast pipe...") or in form of a bribe ("Ensure that this little upstart there gets 64kbit at best").
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Your troll is not even worth wasting mod points on. Why do I have to subsidize your bullshit?
Bull fucking shit!
is not Blu-ray quality and thats what we want.
Cable companies have always been the middle man to what people want, which is content. No matter if that is in the form of sending signals to a cable box that is hooked to your TV or data that is sent to a PC. The problem becomes apparent when Netflix came along and now yet another middle man (Netflix) is also using cable companies as a means to distribute that content. In my opinion Netflix relies heavily on cable companies as well as any ISP to deliver its product.
Without a proper and fast internet connection Netflix would cease to exist. I would say the next few years we will see a more defined way of separating streaming data with services like Netflix and other less demanding and constant data streams. We have already seen routers adjusting priorities and I suspect ISP's will also
be forced to not only continue to increase bandwidth and speed, but also find ways to prioritize data in order to provide a good experience for all. Who will pay for
all this? The broadband subscriber of coarse from higher fee's from both the ISP and the content provider like Netflix.
It is well known the BBC want to extend TV licensing to "watch again" (not quite the same as on-demand) services like iPlayer, 4OD etc. The argument goes that a PVR needs a license but a PC does not, and that this is an anomaly. I can easily see ISPs being used as middle-men to collect the fee.
Not long ago all we did read some ISP would love to charge big providers Netfix in particular
I wrote then, and I am glad some with more press does now, that if I were Netfix I would advise my customers that at their area only this other ISP can provide them their service, and not longer at this one because they asked them for money.
And, if there are competence, that first "clever" ISP would almost dissappear in a blink of an eye
Other alternative that would work would be to ask those ISP customers for the extra money and advice them there are other ISPs at the area that do not charge extra.
The clever way is to internally connect with this giants via intranet (and do not spend internet bandwith) and be able to offer at maximum speeds this intranet services, and at internet speed others with less demand, but Is out there any clever CEO at oligopolistic companies? Their minds are not set for a free market, they are not customer minded, they are political business and it would be hard to change it
So pony up you cocksmocking teabaggers.
"If a broadband provider were to {snip} block or degrade access to its site if it refused to pay a significant fee, such a strategy almost certainly would be self-defeating, in light of the immediately hostile reaction of consumers to such conduct."
You mean the hostile reaction you are getting right now as you do exactly that? Like how every one of your customers that has any other option dumps you in a heartbeat?
Yes, if anyone should be paying anyone, it is Verizon/Comcast that should be paying Netflix, as Netflix is providing the content that Veriz/cast sell to their subscribers.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
They're a direct-to-customer subscription service.
Demanding payment from the carriers would be cutting off their own balls in search of a hand job!
Cable companies just don't get this "Internet" thing, do they? They can only view things through the myopia of their cable business model?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Hey Comcast, Time Warner and others nice try attempting to show yourselves as the victims here. You guys will stoop to any twisting of the truth you think you can get away with. You are right about one thing screw around with the flow of data and all of your customers will unite and make your miserable lives worse. Why is it that American ISPs hate their customers and try to screw them every chance they get?
A few weeks ago I was checking out a new Miley Cyrus video on youtube (sorry about that) and was experiencing excessive buffering and youtube pointed me to their Video Quality Report (http://mashable.com/2014/07/05/youtube-blame-isp-slow-buffering/) trying to blame the slowdown on Comcast. Full disclosure, I'm a Comcast employee who develops network monitoring software so I may not be an expert on all things network but I do know a thing or two. So I ran a few publicly available speed tests and didn't see a problem. The interesting part was that this popular, just released video was the only one having problems. Other youtube videos, even popular ones didn't have any problems. So the question is, is it youtube or is it the network?
"If a broadband provider were to approach one of these hyper-giants and threaten to block or degrade access to its site if it refused to pay a significant fee, such a strategy almost certainly would be self-defeating, in light of the immediately hostile reaction of consumers to such conduct." Well, this part is certainly true, as we can see. Verizon is throttling Netflix, and there's a massive consumer backlash towards them. Which is doing nothing, because these very providers have secured monopoly or duopoloy status in just about every individual market in the country.
Netflix paid a peering deal with Verizon; and Verizon refuses to deliver. Speeds are just as slow as they were before the deal. If Netflix deserves anything; they deserve every cent they paid to Verizon; then they should sue for breech of contract.
Worth it to note that the chairman of the NCTA is the former chairman of the FCC, and the former chairman of the NCTA is the new chairman of the FCC.
Does that seem wholly farked up to anyone else other than me?
So... their argument is "Netflix would have done it first, so we have to do it sooner."?
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
So what they are arguing is that net neutrality must not be enforced, because if it wasn't, they'd be blackmailed?
In other words, please don't pass net neutrality - we want the hypergiants to blackmail us!
Look, I'm not a hateful person or anything I believe we should all live and let live. But lately, I've been having a real problem with these homosexuals. You see, just about wherever I go these days, one of them approaches me and starts sucking my cock.
Take last Sunday, for instance, when I casually struck up a conversation with this guy in the health-club locker room. Nothing fruity, just a couple of fellas talking about their workout routines while enjoying a nice hot shower. The guy looked like a real man's man, tooÃ"big biceps, meaty thighs, thick neck. He didn't seem the least bit gay. At least not until he started sucking my cock, that is.
Where does this queer get the nerve to suck my cock? Did I look gay to him? Was I wearing a pink feather boa without realizing it? I don't recall the phrase, "Suck my cock" entering the conversation, and I don't have a sign around my neck that reads, "Please, You Homosexuals, Suck My Cock."
I've got nothing against homosexuals. Let them be free to do their gay thing in peace, I say. But when they start sucking my cock, then I've got a real problem.
Then there was the time I was hiking through the woods and came across a rugged-looking, blond-haired man in his early 30s. He seemed straight enough to me while we were bathing in that mountain stream, but, before you know it, he's sucking my cock!
What is it with these homos? Can't they control their sexual urges? Aren't there enough gay cocks out there for them to suck on without them having to target normal people like me?
Believe me, I have no interest in getting my cock sucked by some queer. But try telling that to the guy at the beach club. Or the one at the video store. Or the one who catered my wedding. Or any of the countless other homos who've come on to me recently. All of them sucked my cock, and there was nothing I could do to stop them.
I tell you, when a homosexual is sucking your cock, a lot of strange thoughts go through your head: How the hell did this happen? Where did this fairy ever get the idea that I was gay? And where did he get those fantastic boots?
It screws with your head at other times, too. Every time a man passes me on the street, I'm afraid he's going to grab me and drag me off to some bathroom to suck my cock. I've even started to visualize these repulsive cock-sucking episodes during the healthy, heterosexual marital relations I enjoy with my wifeÃ"even some that haven't actually happened, like the sweaty, post-game locker-room tryst with Vancouver Canucks forward Mark Messier that I can't seem to stop thinking about.
Things could be worse, I suppose. It could be women trying to suck my cock, which would be adultery and would make me feel tremendously guilty. As it is, I'm just angry and sickened. But believe me, that's enough. I don't know what makes these homosexuals mistake me for a guy who wants his cock sucked, and, frankly, I don't want to know. I just wish there were some way to get them to stop.
I've tried all sorts of things to get them to stop, but it has all been to no avail. A few months back, I started wearing an intimidating-looking black leather thong with menacing metal studs in the hopes that it would frighten those faggots off, but it didn't work. In fact, it only seemed to encourage them. Then, I really started getting rough, slapping them around whenever they were sucking my cock, but that failed, too. Even pulling out of their mouths just before ejaculation and shooting sperm all over their face, neck, chest and hair seemed to have no effect. What do I have to do to get the message across to these swishes?
I swear, if these homosexuals don't take a hint and quit sucking my cock all the time, I'm going to have to resort to drastic measuresÃ"like maybe pinning them down to the cement floor of the loading dock with my powerful forearms and working my cock all the way up their butt so they understand loud and clear just how much I disapprove of their unwelcome advances. I mean, you can't get much more direct than that.
-g.
Instead of working with the companies that produce functional, popular streaming services, they instead tried to force all of their customers to use their ad-laden crippleware. They've done everything in their power to destroy Netflix, while still making money off of it. They had their chance to play along and now it's too late. We should have absolutely not sympathy for them. If they just decided on standard streaming fees based on viewership, they could make money hand-over-fist while moving away from the expensive schedule management they currently undergo, (and I'm sure I'm not the only one who wanted to watch a show, but could not because they either put it in a horrible timeslot or kept shuffling it around). If they had just played ball they could have made more money for less work, but they insisted on holding on to the power, instead of simply being producers.
You will watch the shows they want you to, or you won't watch TV at all.
Also, the One-Sane-Man argument does not hold ground, as TV execs have proven over and over again, they are not good at doing what's in their own best interest.
This assertion by the ISPs is just Blame the Victim garbage. It's the economic kin to the violent spouse, whose line is "don't make me hit you!"
While their scenario isn't completely beyond the bounds of possibility, the real problem faced today in the developed world is ISP throttling or deliberate withholding of network upgrades to meet customer demand. Content providers are unable to reach their customers with adequate service levels and the ISP world shrugs their shoulders and points at anyone but themselves.
"Related: an article at Gizmodo explains that it takes surprisingly little hardware to replicate (at least most of) Netflix's current online catalog in a local data center. "
It's not surprising. It all boils down to the compression algorithm used. By maintaining a library of nearly exclusively B list movies Netflix is able to seed their algorithm with just a few titles like "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Catwoman", and "Gigli". The rest of the movie files contain quite a bit of material that has a high degree of overlap with these films which allows for heavy compression. Did you know that "Hitch" for example only takes up 6mb when referenced across a library of these 3 films using the netflix compression schema? It's true.
ôó
The comments regarding the effect of explosive expansion in online streaming video (Youtube/Netflix/Redtube etc) from a small ISP's perspective are considered and mostly well though out.
** But you're still doing it wrong. **
If 10% of your customers and using 90% of you bandwidth then you've set up your business model wrong.
Stop offering unlimited usage connections for a monthly fixed price - or your data usage caps are too high.
Overselling subscribed services has existed since the days on Lynx and dialup text internet - with the standard being 10-15 times are many customers as they had modems to support them.
But if you cannot deliver the X GB of data to EVERY customer that you are promising (and they are paying for!) then you are lying and being flatout fraudulent.
Either provision appropriately to be able to deliver on what's promised, or change your business model such that the high usage users don't use you... or that only THEY are inconvenienced when an arbitrary cap is reached - but make it KNOWN and TRANSPARENT..
THIS is the true nature of net neutrality.
Not detrmineting based on the type of CONTENT or its SOURCE.. but rather those who are REQUESTING it and adversely affecting others.
If a Netflix users pays for "100GB/month" form their ISP... then they should be able to watch non-stop Netflix till the cows come home up to the last single byte of 100GB.. and then cutoff/rate-limit/whatever THAT customer using your published TOS (terms Of Service)
If there's an image of this, we can retire this one