Slashdot Mirror


'Netflix and Alphabet Will Need To Become ISPs, Fast' (techcrunch.com)

Following the recent official repeal of net neutrality and approval of AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner, an anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report via TechCrunch, written by Danny Crichton. Crichton discusses the options Alphabet, Netflix and other video streaming services have on how to respond: For Alphabet, that will likely mean a redoubling of its commitment to Google Fiber. That service has been trumpeted since its debut, but has faced cutbacks in recent years in order to scale back its original ambitions. That has meant that cities like Atlanta, which have held out for the promise of cheap and reliable gigabit bandwidth, have been left in something of a lurch. Ultimately, Alphabet's strategic advantage against Comcast, AT&T and other massive ISPs is going to rest on a sort of mutually assured destruction. If Comcast throttles YouTube, then Alphabet can propose launching in a critical (read: lucrative) Comcast market. Further investment in Fiber, Project Fi or perhaps a 5G-centered wireless strategy will be required to give it to the leverage to bring those negotiations to a better outcome.

For Netflix, it is going to have to get into the connectivity game one way or the other. Contracts with carriers like Comcast and AT&T are going to be more challenging to negotiate in light of today's ruling and the additional power they have over throttling. Netflix does have some must-see shows, which gives it a bit of leverage, but so do the ISPs. They are going to have to do an end-run around the distributors to give them similar leverage to what Alphabet has up its sleeve. One interesting dynamic I could see forthcoming would be Alphabet creating strategic partnerships with companies like Netflix, Twitch and others to negotiate as a collective against ISPs. While all these services are at some level competitors, they also face an existential threat from these new, vertically merged ISPs. That might be the best of all worlds given the shit sandwich we have all been handed this week.

19 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. Dumbasses by GerryGilmore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Haven't they learned the lesson of Modern American Capitalism(TM) yet? Crikey, for a tenth of the money they'd spend to start an ISP, they could just buy a few carefully chosen politicians and - voila!

    1. Re:Dumbasses by dryeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You meant Socialism. Geez you kids today don't know words.

      No Socialism is people getting together and starting a co-op ISP.
      Crony Capitalism is when the Capitalists own the government.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. Not one mention of the FTC? by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Net Neutrality isn't dead, its just not being reinforced by the FCC, the FTC now owns it.

    FTC will have to handle bad throttling practices by mega corps of Comcast and ATT.

    Comcast offers unlimited for 50 extra a month, so they can cover that loss in the NFL/ESPN sports ball licenses...

    Binge netflix all you want. I'm too busy watching twitch.

    1. Re: Not one mention of the FTC? by fonos · · Score: 5, Informative

      The FTC will only be able to enforce deceptive practices. If Comcast buries in their TOS that they can slow down connections as they please, it wonâ(TM)t be a violation.

  3. Re:How is this a shit sandwich? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because not every company that will get shafted by greedy ISPs will be able to just roll out their own nation-wide fiber network. Christ, spend 3 seconds thinking before you type.

  4. Re:How is this a shit sandwich? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So in the end companies once again compete instead of collude, and broadband speeds start to go up again after spending years stagnating (or reversing).

    Oh, you sweet summer child. Bless your heart.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Scorched earth can really burn! by mileshigh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If Comcast throttles YouTube, then Alphabet can propose launching in a critical (read: lucrative) Comcast market.

    You mean like Google did to Microsoft Office with Google Docs? Years later, that's still costing MS big-time.. way more than they'll ever make from Bing. Didn't cost Google much, but it sure put MS on notice.

    There's lots more where that came from.

  6. Re: netflix and alphabet will be fine by fonos · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comcast was throttling BitTorrent and lying about it to its customers before the FCC regulations. Comcast also intentionally let their interconnections get saturated to slow down Netflix to get more money. Weâ(TM)ve seen it happen before, it will happen again.

  7. We the consumers by mileshigh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People act like YouTube and Netflix don't already pay ludicrous amounts for their hosting. Any deals between them and an ISP is double dipping.

    Seems to me that we, the consumer suckers, are the ones getting double-dipped. I was pretty clearly under the impression that I already pay for high-speed internet access, including YouTube, Netflix, ...

    1. Re:We the consumers by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 4, Funny

      under the impression that I already pay for high-speed internet access,

      Ahhh yes, there's the fallacy again. You pay your ISP for high-speed access to their network, and then the bill also includes egress access to the general internet.

      For normal ISPs, their network connects you to the outgoing peer that connects you to the actual internet. Those peons don't have enough resources invested to make you stay around their network, so you have to access elsewhere.

      For great ISPs like Comast, Verizon, and the defunct AOL, your high-speed access is simply your window into to our glorious on-line world. Why on Earth would you want to go elsewhere. (No really, WHY? STOP it.) Our network contains glorious, copious amounts of never-ending entertainment that we tie back to your bill, and the best part is that it's free! At least to us that is; we've got all of the already servers sitting on our networks and pay for the content anyway, so the more we can makeXXXX ahem, let you stay within our network the better for us.

      For that small eventuality when you need to access the general internet to, say, connect to your bank to pay our bill, we graciously provide an egress to the general overall internet where "everyone else" lives. But don't dally outside too long, because there's GREAT stuff already located on our network where we also store your bill, and after all, we have to pay for internet egress access, y'know? That stuff gets expensive. The text and few graphics your bank has? Fine. Audio, and then video streaming? To the outside world?? STOP it, that stuff's bothersome, our 1200 baud modem to the outside world gets really hot sometimes, y'know? Our 10G and experimental 100G blades interconnect just fine, but do you know how hard it is to FIND a modem now-a-days? US Robotics isn't making them anymore and eBay seems to have supply problems as well. So just say on OUR side of the network and everyone'll be much happier.

      So in conclusion, connect to your ISP and just stay there. We might or might not bill your for bytes, but if you egress then WE'LL ALSO be billed for them. Friends don't make other friends incur extra costs. Just hang around our network and billing services, we'll all be much happier if you do. That's a nice internet you've got there, shame if something were to happen to it.

      -- Your loving ISPs: Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, CenturyLink, CoX.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  8. Re:netflix and alphabet will be fine by davros74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean the customers will *complain*. Revolting would probably mean something like cancel their service. But with most places in the US with just 1 or 2 options for high-bandwidth ISPs, actually hitting these ISPs where it hurts (cancel service and monthly bills) means Denial of Service to the customer.

    Hence why Title II regulations really ought to still apply, and vertical integration should NOT be allowed. (You can either sell an internet pipe, content/services, but NOT BOTH). It's such a blatent conflict of interest.

    (Also note historically, like 20 years ago, Net Neutrality rules didn't have to have as much meat in them because most ISPs didn't own the last mile, the phone company did, so ISPs could compete, and the phone company played it's TitleII card (we just pass bits, so we don't look at the traffic at all, and also not liable!).

    Now the ISPs, telcos, content providers and distribution systems are all owned by the same entity.... how is this good for the consumer and where does "market forces" actually play when dealing with companies with federally granted monopoly power (and using that power to extend their influence in other markets... vertically).

  9. Re: netflix and alphabet will be fine by triffid_98 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um...they were totally NOT fine guy who apparently shills for the cable industry. How do you imagine this neutrality bill got passed to begin with? Multiple carriers were fined for throttling and Netflix paid an "undisclosed amount" to Comcast and their internet magically wasn't crippled anymore. Please go die in a lake of fire.

  10. Here we go... by infernalC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We know how AT&T handles this sort of thing with TV networks.

    Next week, you'll go to Netflix.com and they'll start showing modal popups saying AT&T has decided to deny access to Netflix in a few weeks, and to call AT&T and let them know how you feel.

    Three weeks later, you'll go to Netflix.com and get a certificate error: bad CNAME. Users who are idiots enough to click through the errors will see a marketing-crafted propaganda video about how Netflix has chosen not to share their content anymore with AT&T subscribers, and to call Netflix and let them know how you feel.

    Invariably, this will occur right when some major season finale is supposed to air.

    The Internet should be a utility. It should just be metered and paid for by the consumers, who should be able to freely change their caps. Who cares how they use the bandwidth they pay for?

  11. Re:netflix and alphabet will be fine by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Net neutrality isnt about Netflix and Alphabet. Bandwidth throttling and companies having to pay for a "premium channel" to their customers doesn't hurt them, they will pay and carry on: this extra fee is an annoyance, but it actually helps protect them from competing startups without deep pockets. Good luck launching your music or video streaming service if the connection to your customers is going to be shit by design.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  12. Netflix should flip the script by ChrisKnight · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone is worried that ISPs will start charging more money for faster content. So, Netflix should beat them to the punch. Netflix should create NIPP (Netflix ISP Partner Program), where partners pledge to not charge customers more money for decent bandwidth, and that they will not charge Netflix a premium transit fee to keep from slowing them down. ISPs that don't sign up for NIPP get videos to their IP space automatically downgraded to a lower quality. If it is impossible to get full resolution videos on Comcast, you can bet I'll be moving to AT&T Fiber, or Sonic, or somebody who is partnered with Netflix.

    --
    -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
  13. Re:How is this a shit sandwich? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason we need net neutrality to begin with is the telcos and cablecos leveraged government granted monopolies for their telephone/cable services and used them for their new internet service. They successfully prevented new ISPs from entering their markets by barring use of the infrastructure already in place and the new ISPs were barred from running their own by said government mandate. Had the government repealed the mandate to allow other entities to negotiate running their own cable perhaps your argument would be valid. But since the mandate is still in place and existing ISP companies are spending billions lobbying state governments to keep any competition out we end up here with content providers also being the gatekeepers to subscribers. We've already seen the result. Netflix offered to save AT&T millions of dollars by placing content delivery network (CDN) servers inside AT&T's network. This would have alleviated hundreds of terabytes of traffic through the backbone. AT&T refused for years and Netflix subscribers on AT&T (Verizon too) got buffering signals frequently. Then when enough AT&T customers complained about it AT&T told Netflix they could alleviate the buffering by paying AT&T a toll! Why? Because AT&T has their own PPV content they want to sell and Netflix is a competitor to that service. The Time Warner acquisition will only increase the animosity to third party content providers. AT&T's only real competition to their ISP is Comcast or Charter (Spectrum) depending on what market it is. Alphabet and any other company looking to become an ISP still has an uphill battle in the majority of US states with local municipalities going to war against state government to get permission to let them in.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  14. Re:How is this a shit sandwich? by ravenshrike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And if it weren't for regulatory capture at the local level eliminating competition that wouldn't even be an issue.

  15. Re:Actions are all that matters by Mystiq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Move?

    I typically refrain from using explicatives and ad hominems on Slashdot but how fucking stupid are you? Are you literally a Russian troll or just acting like one? If moving was an option for everyone, we wouldn't be in this shit sandwich because people would just congregate in areas with more than one ISP choice and ISPs would have recognized years ago monopolies don't work.

    And yet, monopolies do work, you shmuck, and here we are.

    No, moving is not an option. Most people don't want to pick up and move just because their ISP is being a shitstain. There are typically bigger priorities than that. No, we will not guaranteed get a third ISP. And even if we did, the effect is making the entry to market for websites that much higher. Startups now have to start or join an ISP? Are you fucking kidding me?

    AT&T buying Time Warner is one of the biggest shit sandwiches in the history of the Internet, aside from losing the battle on Net Neutrality. We're going from 2 ISPs in some areas to 1. At best we'll go back to 2. At worst, everyone involved, actors good and bad, now recognizes the cost of business in the new age: buddy up with an ISP or don't fucking bother trying.

    If the Department of Justice was in any sort of functional order right now, this deal would have been laughed at on day 1 or the two companies involved would never have tried.

  16. Re:Actions are all that matters by houghi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Strange that you have no cpmpetition in the US and here I amn living in the communist country (accoding to stuped Mericans) of Europe and have the option of several companies with several offers at several speeds.
    I have real unlimeted and pay 40 EUR or so for 100M down and 30M up. There are cheaper and faster ones, but they will not be as unlimited.

    And I live in one of the more expensive ones with not that many competition as others.

    Stuped communists who do things for the people by the people.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.