4 ms·

> 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

> 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
takeda 9y ago
It's passive that Comcast et all already made some deals with Netflix and others.
exelius 9y ago
I think for Netflix it was more pragmatic than that. I don't think they were ever really committed to Net Neutrality -- it was just a negotiating tactic to get lower rates for the interconnects that they would inevitably need once they saw their transit rates going through the roof. Keep in mind that Netflix is somewhere around 40-50% of peak internet traffic volume. Operating without edge caches located physically within the ISPs network was not feasible. It is not reasonable to expect the ISPs to integrate/operate those edge caches for no cost. Netflix always knew they were going to have to pay, the question was "How much?" Once you start dealing with network architecture for video distribution at the national ISP scale, strict principles of net neutrality don't really make a ton of sense. You need edge caches, you need a place to put them, and it's expensive and complex for ISPs to manage the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of vendors who want to put edge caches in their datacenters. Netflix just wanted a better "volume price" than they were paying before.
- neuter101 9y ago
  > It is not reasonable to expect the ISPs to integrate/operate those edge caches for no cost. I don't get this argument. If it is cheaper than the alternative (buying more IP transit / peering, dealing with customer complaints, churn, etc.) why not?
  - exelius 9y ago
    The ISPs bear none of the expense of "buying more IP transit". The end services (i.e. Netflix) do. That's always how the transit business has worked in the US -- the sender pays (this is how AWS works, and not by coincidence -- traffic within the AWS network is free in most cases, but leaving the network you pay). If you want to not pay, well, that's fine I guess. But nobody is going to take your traffic. And it's been this way since like 1990. Edit: I'll note that it works differently in other places such as Europe because the telecoms are subsidized and partially owned by the government. That's not going to happen in the US, and there are a lot of entrenched interests and political power supporting this business model.
    - neuter101 9y ago

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

takeda 9y ago

It's passive that Comcast et all already made some deals with Netflix and others.

exelius 9y ago

I think for Netflix it was more pragmatic than that. I don't think they were ever really committed to Net Neutrality -- it was just a negotiating tactic to get lower rates for the interconnects that they would inevitably need once they saw their transit rates going through the roof. Keep in mind that Netflix is somewhere around 40-50% of peak internet traffic volume. Operating without edge caches located physically within the ISPs network was not feasible. It is not reasonable to expect the ISPs to integrate/operate those edge caches for no cost. Netflix always knew they were going to have to pay, the question was "How much?" Once you start dealing with network architecture for video distribution at the national ISP scale, strict principles of net neutrality don't really make a ton of sense. You need edge caches, you need a place to put them, and it's expensive and complex for ISPs to manage the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of vendors who want to put edge caches in their datacenters. Netflix just wanted a better "volume price" than they were paying before.

neuter101 9y ago
> It is not reasonable to expect the ISPs to integrate/operate those edge caches for no cost. I don't get this argument. If it is cheaper than the alternative (buying more IP transit / peering, dealing with customer complaints, churn, etc.) why not?
- exelius 9y ago
  The ISPs bear none of the expense of "buying more IP transit". The end services (i.e. Netflix) do. That's always how the transit business has worked in the US -- the sender pays (this is how AWS works, and not by coincidence -- traffic within the AWS network is free in most cases, but leaving the network you pay). If you want to not pay, well, that's fine I guess. But nobody is going to take your traffic. And it's been this way since like 1990. Edit: I'll note that it works differently in other places such as Europe because the telecoms are subsidized and partially owned by the government. That's not going to happen in the US, and there are a lot of entrenched interests and political power supporting this business model.
  - neuter101 9y ago