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.
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
Right in TFS: "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."
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.
The Telecommunications association seems to have forgotten how telecommunication works.. not to mention the meaning of the word "indeed"
back in the 1990's ESPN extracted payment from every ISP for users to access the website
this was before watch ESPN and needing a cable subscription. this was at the dawn of the internet for people to access a "free"website.
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 :)
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.
Customers are DEMANDING those bits. If you can't afford to keep those bits flowing, start charging your customers more.
To some extent I'm sure it's still happening. As a Comcast subscriber I have access to an online streaming service called "WatchESPN" that lets me watch various ESPN channels on my computers or phones, as long as I'm on my Comcast internet connection. I don't use it, but I guarantee you that part of my monthly fee is paying for it, just like I don't watch any of the ESPN TV channels but I know a big chunk of my monthly cable TV fee goes straight to them. Of course ESPN also offers ESPN3.com which requires an additional monthly subscription on its own.
There used to be a chart with a nice breakdown of how much the average cable subscriber's bill goes to each of the content providers. ESPN was by far the biggest chunk, Disney/ABC took a good portion, etc. I'd love to see a recent breakdown if anyone has one.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
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.
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.
Surely you're not talking about Netflix? If you're an ISP, Netflix will peer with you for free at 8 major POPs. They will even give you caching servers to put at your border. If one service is consuming 75% of your transit, someone probably does have a busted model but it isn't Netflix.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
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.
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.)
They colocate content servers with telecommunications providers. Just not with podunk microISPs who boast that they host seven whole websites.
Throttle Netflix and you can kiss your residential customers (if you have any substantial number) goodbye. You don't have the scale or technology required to create a virtual monopoly around your customers. They'll drop you in a heartbeat in favor of the next service to offer DSL or point-to-point wirless.
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.
Yeah, i don't see how their supposed 'netflix is going to extort us' scare is supposed to work. Everything I remember about how the internet works pretty much invalidates the idea.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
I must be missing something - you are unable to provide the bandwidth you advertise to your end users and you are complaining that the companies they are requesting data from are at fault? This is the same as saying that the concert at the stadium is at fault for the traffic backups. Wouldn't the fault be more with the road providers? Especially when the concert people are saying "Hmm, we know this is possibly a problem - we can put a live hologram local to your people so they don't have to get on your roads" and instead of saying "yes", you say "no, it's all your fault we can't provide it". Your end-users are your customer - and should you start throttling because you're unwilling (or unable) to provide the bandwidth, they are well within their rights to nail you to the wall for failing to provide SLA data throughput if it is correctable by you.
They (Disney) are still extracting payments from the cable companies by requiring bundling of their media properties. If Comcast, Verizon, AT&T want ESPN they must carry ALL ESPN channels. It's one of the main reasons we can't get A La Carte programming.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Where the ISP argument breaks down is that, ESPN forced people who wanted their content to either pay or have a cable subscription. So if I didn't want to pay and didn't have cable, I'd have to find my "ESPN fix" (like I would have one) elsewhere, which most likely I could at something like any other flipping news site. But let's say that I can't do that. Well, then I guess I'll have to invent something to compete with ESPN. The flip side of that equation is if I don't like my cable company, I'm basically fucked. I have no other option and I cannot build something to compete with them (in the cable biz at least) because my county has laws on the books that prevent that kind of crap.
That is the big difference. A content provider tries to extort fees and we can find something else. A cable company randomly asks to fuck you in the ass and you have absolutely no choice about it. There literally is no one else. So this "mega" edge threat they are bitching about is not even a flipping issue, it's not even remotely an issue. To make the argument that the cable companies are making here would be like to argue how highways compete with airports. Yes they both have paved surfaces, but if you don't understand how one gets you to the other, then you're a fucking insane money twat.
I think at this point Comcast should just start cycling commercials showing Brian Roberts on his mega yacht looking real sad saying, "if you don't give me a total monopoly on the Internet, then I won't be able to expand my six bedroom, three bath yacht. I mean c'mon, if I can't do that, then how will my other 23 fucking houses that I own all over the world feel?" Because at this point, this guy is just going for bragging rights over how much he can truly extort from people.
PS: If you can't tell I have a very large dislike for Comcast/NBC and good comment there guy.
They are dreaming. We are thinking about throttling them here right now.
So why don't you tell us who you work for so we know who to start filing lawsuits against for abusing their monopoly?
You want to charge your customers for Internet access, and then not actually provide it. Thats what you're saying. Your customers paid for that bandwidth when they paid you. What you're saying is why you shouldn't be allowed to do business. Either provide the service you sold or get out of business.
I mean really how hard would it be to include some kind of encrypted cache that would store media for a time.
You don't actually work for an ISP, do you? This exactly what content delivery networks like Akamai and Netflix's own CDN do. The fact that you don't know about them makes your story highly suspect.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Other customers are demanding other bits and they don't wan't to pay more to feed others hunger for back to back streams of game of thrones.
Thats your problem. You over sold service and can't provide what you sold.
Its a poorly designed system and its not the isp's at fault its the netflix don't understand how to do things efficiently.
Actually they do, which is why they'll colo a rack for you for free, or peer with you at any major pop, for free.
The poor design is yours. You're just a shitty ISP.
it uses almost as much bandwidth as our customers use. Thats straight from netflix. Its crap on top of crap with them.
Bullshit. Its a local cache, exactly what you were demanding they do originally. You're clueless.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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
I think they're looking at how cable companies have to pay content providers to broadcast their content.
Disney, ESPN, CNN, etc all charge the cable company for their content. If the cable company doesn't pay, then their customers don't get the channels.
Will this happen with websites or Netflix? It doesn't seem possible, yet it's hard to know just where all this is going.
Consider facebook. What would happen if suddenly facebook demanded an ISP pay them for access by the ISP's customers? Who would the customers blame? Would they simply give up on facebook or would they hound their ISP to pay up?
Disney, ESPN, CNN all charge customers directly on the Internet, as does netflix.
If they started charging comcast/timewarner/cox/whoever for Internet services they would be double dipping. This cost would certainly be passed on to users who would be unhappy to be paying twice for the same service.
Facebook charging an ISP would also be passed on to the customers, at which point customers would protest. No one will knowingly part with money for Facebook. They'll stop using it before paying for it (knowingly). They'll pay for it by giving Facebook their data and tons of ads, but parting with cash so you can see someones dog chase its talk or lolcats not so much.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Now that Comcast will soon be the nation's only cable company, why don't they just tell the networks they will no longer pay for their channels once the current contract is up? What are the networks going to do, lose nearly all of their viewers overnight?
What the ISPs are ACTUALLY afraid of is popular businesses like NetFlix doing what many other content providers have done when presented with higher costs of market participation have done. They simply stop providing content and let their consumers influence the carriers. It's the content providers who provide value to the carriers, not the other way around. And that fact becomes exceedingly clear when content providers push back by pulling out and fans/consumers get upset.
Can you imagine what would happen to even the most powerful ISP if NetFlix refused to send packets to endpoints controlled by such an ISP? Where do you think the consumer outrage would be focused? On NetFlix or the carrier? History suggests the outrage goes to the carrier who threatens and charges the content providers for the priviledge of connecting with consumers.
TV Networks already double dip. they get paid for advertising, and they get paid for a cable carrier to add them to the channel list. now they have a triple dip as they ask customers to pay to gain dvr-type access straight from their web site. (which some add commercials to as well)
this kind of thing is why areo got hammered so quickly. they skipped the second dip for the TV stations. Now cable companies (falsely i hope) are saying that netflix may be in a position of getting a cut like a cable station or risk being blacklisted. (remember Dish network and FOX?)
Umm, ESPN ALREADY charges the ISPs in order for any of their customers to access EXPN360. ESPN360 is "free" to the consumer, but you can only access it if your ISP pays ESPN a fee for each and every subscriber to your ISP's service.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
There used to be a chart with a nice breakdown of how much the average cable subscriber's bill goes to each of the content providers. ESPN was by far the biggest chunk, Disney/ABC took a good portion, etc. I'd love to see a recent breakdown if anyone has one.
Here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...
There are "natural monopolies" in the real world. An example would be that "last mile" thing - it makes very little sense for seventeen competing companies to all run fibre to every house in a city.
"Natural monopolies" should be the province of government.
Other than the "natural monopolies", pretty much every monopoly exists as a result of government regulation imposing draconian startup penalties on newcomers. Frequently as a result of a business bribing government to impose those barriers, but when you have a government that can do anything you desire, it's going to be bribed to do what someone other than you desires also....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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?