4 ms·

For an article that seems to be in such favor of net neutrality, the author is not making any attempt to be neutral in presenting the material. I read the Reco

by dsacco 9y ago

For an article that seems to be in such favor of net neutrality, the author is not making any attempt to be neutral in presenting the material. I read the Recode article this article is citing and watched the conference discussion. Here is what Hastings actually said: “It’s not narrowly important to us because we’re big enough to get the deals we want,” Hastings said. This article presents that subtly differently, by omitting the first sentence and shifting around the context (and thereby altering the tone). It also conveniently fails to include the broader discussion in which Hastings made this statement. If you look at the actual conference dialogue, Hastings didn't outright dismiss net neutrality categorically. Rather, he was forthright in admitting that it's not a priority within the context of Netflix's current goals due to a resignation that it's not a fight worth the resources, which is far less cavalier and hypocritical than portrayed. The Recode article continues with more nuanced coverage: Perhaps another reason Netflix is being a little quieter about fighting to keep current net neutrality rules is that Hastings knows it’s already a lost cause. His best guess at what will happen is exactly what FCC chair Ajit Pai has been hinting at: “It might be that ISPs just accept the principles [of net neutrality] and it’s not enshrined formally,” he said. “I think the FCC is going to unwind Title II,” he added later. And he believes that it’s in the ISPs’ “long term interest” to respect net neutrality principles, so maybe they’ll just do it on their own. While we're at it, Hastings was also quoted saying, “The Trump FCC is going to unwind the rules no matter what anybody says." I'm not taking a side on Netflix's course of action here, but I personally feel this article presented the facts in a particularly disingenuous way. There are legitimate arguments that blindly throwing resources at fighting the FCC is an unproductive use of time and money, even if you are pro-net neutrality. You can disagree with those arguments, but it's really unfair to mischaracterize them as sympathy and hypocrisy. For those of you readying hashtags and boycotts, consider that there can be valid opposition to the FCC that looks more nuanced than, for example, Tim Cook's letter to the US government.

snewk 9y ago
thanks for the measured response. this is the kind of comment i've come to expect from HN. it adds to the conversation. the other responses on this story are surprising to me. they seem to be on the intellectual level of reddit/facebook.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dingaling 9y ago
> he was forthright in admitting that it's not a priority within the context of Netflix's current goals due to a resignation that it's not a fight worth the resources I think that's dangerously short-termist. The end of network neutrality will consume far more resources in the long term than the disarray of a resignation that will be forgotten bynext year. Sure, they can afford the deals with carriers this year, and next. But once they're locked-in the fees will just keep rising. Why wouldn't Comcast, for example, keep raising the preferred-bits delivery fee? They'd be negligent not to do so. I was hoping that the big Internet content-giants would ignore the pay-for-priority-delivery model that is emerging; if no-one paid for first-class delivery then the pricing model would collapse. However it seems that they'll just fall in line and accept it as a cost of business, increasing the 'cost' to their customers to compensate.
- delinka 9y ago
  "...if no-one paid for first-class delivery..." Then they'll just make sure all delivery is third-class.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  while I like some of the promises that NN supporters claim we will have I remember back to the highly regulated days of where ISDN was all that was offered outside of pricey T1 lines and only because of lack of regulation did competition arise to give me the day when I now have 1G internet. Even getting ISDN installed was an absolute bear and I gave up while another stuck with it. Modems were fortunately getting faster but DSL didn't come to us till after cable did. We are just as likely to get a regulated nightmare guaranteeing mediocre speeds and service at set costs the prevents anyone from wanting to jump in. Besides I really want to know why we should favor content providers over service providers? If you are going to regulate one then why not the other?
  - chc 9y ago
    I'm not sure how we'd go about treating content providers as dumb pipes. What are you proposing there?
- 9y ago
xg15 9y ago
Thank you for noting there is an additional source to conside - but, I'm sorry, I don't see the difference it makes. > Hastings didn't outright dismiss net neutrality categorically. I didn't read the first article as stating that he would. > Rather, he was forthright in admitting that it's not a priority within the context of Netflix's current goals due to a resignation that it's not a fight worth the resources [...] "Not worth the resources" is a statement that can have many reasons - one try at an explanation could be that the "worth" is primarily determined by how much use net neutrality would be to Netflix, a theory somewhat backed by Hastings' first quote. That the Trump FCC is shifting the weights is certainly true, though I don't see how the change is profound enough to justify ceding defeat. The telco lobbyists certainly didn't "give up" under Obama and the FCC's then pro-net-neutrality stance.
doktrin 9y ago
> Rather, he was forthright in admitting that it's not a priority within the context of Netflix's current goals due to a resignation that it's not a fight worth the resources Just out of curiosity, what kind of resources are we talking about? Maybe this is an overly naive view, but from my perspective it seems like they could just as easily have kept a nominal pro-NN stance without actually investing any meaningful capital. In other words, even if they internally decided that this isn't a "fight" worth continuing in terms of the legal battle - it's not really clear why they felt the need to publicly distance themselves from net neutrality like this. Why not simply keep paying it lip service?
- JonMR 9y ago
  Pure conspiracy theory but it is to Netflix's advantage to hinder upstarts from entering the market by not supporting net neutrality.
  - sqeaky 9y ago
    That's not really a conspiracy theory, other than the current lack of evidence. That is just business as usual in most areas of business. It is just rare on the Internet, for reasons I don't completely understand.
  - thinkpad20 9y ago
    This isn't a conspiracy theory; it's exactly what the article is arguing. Now that net neutrality might hurt Netflix rather than benefit them, not only are they not motivated to advocate for it (which, as the above comment pointed out, would not require any significant effort), but they are probably more inclined to advocate against it. This is might be seen as an instance of "pulling the ladder up behind you".
  - SilasX 9y ago
    They went through a lot of effort to make e.g. Verizon look bad if they didn't oppose NN. Lots of back-and-forth in 2014, but here are major HN discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7872168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7872168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8016055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8016055
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by dsacco 9y ago

snewk 9y ago

thanks for the measured response. this is the kind of comment i've come to expect from HN. it adds to the conversation. the other responses on this story are surprising to me. they seem to be on the intellectual level of reddit/facebook.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dingaling 9y ago

> he was forthright in admitting that it's not a priority within the context of Netflix's current goals due to a resignation that it's not a fight worth the resources I think that's dangerously short-termist. The end of network neutrality will consume far more resources in the long term than the disarray of a resignation that will be forgotten bynext year. Sure, they can afford the deals with carriers this year, and next. But once they're locked-in the fees will just keep rising. Why wouldn't Comcast, for example, keep raising the preferred-bits delivery fee? They'd be negligent not to do so. I was hoping that the big Internet content-giants would ignore the pay-for-priority-delivery model that is emerging; if no-one paid for first-class delivery then the pricing model would collapse. However it seems that they'll just fall in line and accept it as a cost of business, increasing the 'cost' to their customers to compensate.

delinka 9y ago
"...if no-one paid for first-class delivery..." Then they'll just make sure all delivery is third-class.
Shivetya 9y ago
while I like some of the promises that NN supporters claim we will have I remember back to the highly regulated days of where ISDN was all that was offered outside of pricey T1 lines and only because of lack of regulation did competition arise to give me the day when I now have 1G internet. Even getting ISDN installed was an absolute bear and I gave up while another stuck with it. Modems were fortunately getting faster but DSL didn't come to us till after cable did. We are just as likely to get a regulated nightmare guaranteeing mediocre speeds and service at set costs the prevents anyone from wanting to jump in. Besides I really want to know why we should favor content providers over service providers? If you are going to regulate one then why not the other?
- chc 9y ago
  I'm not sure how we'd go about treating content providers as dumb pipes. What are you proposing there?
9y ago

xg15 9y ago

Thank you for noting there is an additional source to conside - but, I'm sorry, I don't see the difference it makes. > Hastings didn't outright dismiss net neutrality categorically. I didn't read the first article as stating that he would. > Rather, he was forthright in admitting that it's not a priority within the context of Netflix's current goals due to a resignation that it's not a fight worth the resources [...] "Not worth the resources" is a statement that can have many reasons - one try at an explanation could be that the "worth" is primarily determined by how much use net neutrality would be to Netflix, a theory somewhat backed by Hastings' first quote. That the Trump FCC is shifting the weights is certainly true, though I don't see how the change is profound enough to justify ceding defeat. The telco lobbyists certainly didn't "give up" under Obama and the FCC's then pro-net-neutrality stance.

doktrin 9y ago

> Rather, he was forthright in admitting that it's not a priority within the context of Netflix's current goals due to a resignation that it's not a fight worth the resources Just out of curiosity, what kind of resources are we talking about? Maybe this is an overly naive view, but from my perspective it seems like they could just as easily have kept a nominal pro-NN stance without actually investing any meaningful capital. In other words, even if they internally decided that this isn't a "fight" worth continuing in terms of the legal battle - it's not really clear why they felt the need to publicly distance themselves from net neutrality like this. Why not simply keep paying it lip service?

JonMR 9y ago
Pure conspiracy theory but it is to Netflix's advantage to hinder upstarts from entering the market by not supporting net neutrality.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  That's not really a conspiracy theory, other than the current lack of evidence. That is just business as usual in most areas of business. It is just rare on the Internet, for reasons I don't completely understand.
- thinkpad20 9y ago
  This isn't a conspiracy theory; it's exactly what the article is arguing. Now that net neutrality might hurt Netflix rather than benefit them, not only are they not motivated to advocate for it (which, as the above comment pointed out, would not require any significant effort), but they are probably more inclined to advocate against it. This is might be seen as an instance of "pulling the ladder up behind you".
- SilasX 9y ago
  They went through a lot of effort to make e.g. Verizon look bad if they didn't oppose NN. Lots of back-and-forth in 2014, but here are major HN discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7872168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7872168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8016055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8016055

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]