Netflix Changes Course, Says It Will 'Never Outgrow' Fight For Net Neutrality (vice.com)

After a few months of wishy-washy statements on net neutrality indicating that the company had largely given up on it, Netflix is changing course. From a report: On July 12, the video streaming company will join Amazon, Reddit, Pornhub, Imgur, and more to incorporate slowed-down or disrupted service to raise awareness for the importance of strong net neutrality guidelines, giving visitors to its site a taste of what a future without a free and open internet could look like. The protest, organized by Fight for the Future, freepress, and Demand Progress, takes place five days before the first deadline for comments on the FCC's proposal to roll back net neutrality protections. The change in heart comes days after Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said, "[Net neutrality is] not narrowly important to us because we're big enough to get the deals we want."

Comments

ISPs should meter their customers

[OrangeTide]

Instead of trying to parasitically extract money from an arbitrary list of content providers, ISPs only need to charge us per bit. At that point those end users who are clogging up the Internet with UHD video traffic from Netflix & friends can pay a proportionally larger amount than people who read a blog and watch a few SD clips on YouTube.

Of course ISPs are too chicken to meter their customers after having made all these promises of "unlimited" service. And as a customer, I certainly wouldn't want to be metered. But if ISPs want to maximize their profits and charge people to support the infrastructure that is being used then end user metering is the obvious way. (and perfectly legal)

Re:ISPs should meter their customers

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to say I'm happy to pay by the GB, but then I remember that telco companies used to charge 20 cents for a text message or roughly $1,250,000 per GB. (assuming 140 bytes per message and a 20 byte overhead).

Now I know that's a ridiculous comparison, but if they thought they could get away with charging that much to use unused overhead in their existing lines, I imagine we won't be getting a particularly good deal if they switch to a pay-per-use plan.

If we make them Title II, and regulate their pricing then fine. Otherwise, we'll need a LOT more competition than the market has now to drive prices down.

Re:ISPs should meter their customers

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're an idiot. An "unused" GB cannot be stored and sold later. The reason why you pay for "the rest of your utilities" that way is that they have costs associated with the wire, the pipes, etc. and the thing those wires and pipes transport. An unused gallon of water can be stored and sold to someone else, or not "created" in the first place. Treating water costs money. An ISP does not have a GB reservoir that you're using up. An ISP pays no money to replenish the GB they can offer to you. Unused bandwidth is wasted bandwidth. You pay for the bandwidth because that's the only thing that costs money. Every time someone wants to change who gets paid what, you idiots try to scare people into submission by waving this "pay by the GB" scenario over our heads. SHUT THE FUCK UP and return to your cave, trolls.

Re:ISPs should meter their customers

[Rick Schumann]

Charging that way would be pretty much like the way utility companies charge their customers, which is precisely why ISPs (in my opinion) would never go for it: They'd end up being DECLARED public utilities (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, therefore IT'S A DUCK principle) and therefore subject to all the regulation that goes with it, which is the last thing they ever want. Also people would then start closely monitoring their own usage, to keep their monthly bill down, which would mean ISPs would become unprofitable. Also, wireless companies are at least as much ISPs as they are cell service providers anymore, so they'd be next. Between the two they'd both become very unprofitable compared to the way things are now, which is why they'd all fight it tooth and nail. Would probably be great for consumers. Too bad it'll never happen.

Gatekeepers meet Keymasters

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we allow those who control the pipes also have their own content?
This creates a huge conflict of interest in promoting the use of their content over someone like NF.

The Sierra Network (TSN) pricing

[OrangeTide]

Rates for the service I used, as of 1995 were as follows:

        Welcome Plan: 5 hours for $9.95, $2.95 each additional hour
        10 Plan: 10 hours for $19.95, $2.75 each additional hour
        15 Plan: 15 hours for $29.95, $2.50 each additional hour
        25 Plan: 25 hours for $49.95, $2.25 each additional hour
        50 Plan: 50 hours for $99.95, $1.95 each additional hour
        Unlimited Plan: for $129.95

And this was for dial-up at 2400 bps (and possibly 9600?) ref

Back to my original post, it might be inconvenient to do hourly rates for an always-on broadband, so metering is a natural choice.
Also if someone uses your WiFi, you're stuck with a huge bill that you probably deserve for not securing your WiFi network.

Too Late

[pak9rabid]

It's too late. You've already shown your true colors, this is just pandering to keep customers.

With great arrogance

[ITRambo]

When they're too big to care, they're never to big to fall. In fact, the CEO's arrogant comment would have been enough to drive some people away. Netflix no longer brings out the best new content. Iron Fist, the last season of House of Cards, are examples of traditional TV style weak programming full of filler scenes that are boring, where they don't care as they think you're hooked without any options.

The obvious problem

[saibot834]

The obvious problem with this is that sending bits is not what costs ISPs money. What costs money is having a high-enough bandwidth connection to the backbone during *peak traffic* time. Your ISP is and should be much happier if you download at 4am.

Ideally, you would pay for a certain small guaranteed bandwidth, which you get at all times, including during peak loads (this is kinda far in the future, but ISPs could use SIBRA bandwidth reservations or similar systems). Additionally, you get "up to X" amount of bandwidth at off-peak times. Your ISP should publish how high this "up to X" is on average during each hour of the day, so that you get a realistic idea of what to expect. To make the most efficient use of the infrastructure, during low use time, X should only be limited by the physical limitations of the network -- i.e. if you have a 1 GBit/s connection, they should give you 1 GBit/s even if your peak load guarantee is only for 20 MBit/s.

That's the most efficient way to utilize the network.

A fair-weather friend.

[Gravis Zero]

I could be wrong but it seems like Netflix only a proponent of network neutrality when it suits them. I suspect they have recently gotten notice that they are being throttled in some locations and they don't like the proposed contract, so they are back on the net neutrality bandwagon. Once they establish long term contracts with major ISPs, they'll be back to their old anti-competitive ways.

I call bullshit

[klingens]

Netflix was the company who paid the ISPs so they wouldn't throttle them. For years.
Netflix is the other part of the net neutrality violators: the one that pays the money for preferred treatment of packets.
The ISPs are the sellers of this.
Violation of net neutrality cannot happen without both, and netflix being as big as it is, and being the first guys who paifd, made sure that violation of net neutrality will forever be thought of as a great business move by all ISPs.

So netflix is slightly less evil than the ISPs which basically shook down netflix, but still very very evil.

Throttle Washington

[labnet]

All they need to do, is throttle the entire Washington area to 256kbs for a few days.

Re:Throttle Washington

[by (1706743)]

I think throttling this might make more of a difference...

uh oh

[Tailhook]

Hastings must be figuring that Comcast, Charter et al. might try to squeeze him for peering costs. High flying CEO types don't make public about faces like this on a whim.... this is a pocket book issue.