4 ms·

tbrock is right. When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that make

tbrock is right. When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that makes it extremely difficult for new companies to come in and disrupt you. Netflix is still interested in net neutrality because they are not as dominant and because they will face competition from ISPs who are also content providers now. Comcast owns NBC Universal. In fact, this loss of net neutrality would have been less dangerous if ISPs were just pipes trying to make more money rather than also being content companies.

notyourday 9y ago
> When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that makes it extremely difficult for new companies to come in and disrupt you. See Netflix and VZ PNIs saga a few years ago for proof. > Netflix is still interested in net neutrality because they are not as dominant and because they will face competition from ISPs who are also content providers now. Comcast owns NBC Universal. No, Netflix is not interested in NN - see it paying for VZ transit to just VZ, i.e. buying access. Long time ago, in a galaxy far away there was a CTO ran company that fought for NN well before it was fashionable. The company's name was AboveNet and CTO's name was Dave Rand. The company carried a large percentage of the Internet traffic at the time and he would still play hardball with the likes of Sprint, DT, UUNET/MCI worldcom etc. From that point on not a single company that claimed or currently claims to be supporter of NN has not even tried to put its money where its mouth is. [Edit: after the downvotes ] Really? Google is your friend. http://time.com/2838570/verizon-netflix-feud-streaming-speeds/ http://time.com/2838570/verizon-netflix-feud-streaming-speed... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-packets-being-dropped-every-day-because-verizon-wants-more-money/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netfl... http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-agrees-to-pay-verizon-for-direct-connections-1201166187/ http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-agrees-to-pay-v... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level3-proves-that-verizon-is-absolutely-to-blame-netflix-congestion-using-verizons-own-data.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level... [Another edit: since some people would point that they called it peering ] Paying transit rates to access only routes originated by the AS group of VZ is not peering - it is transit.

notyourday 9y ago

> When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that makes it extremely difficult for new companies to come in and disrupt you. See Netflix and VZ PNIs saga a few years ago for proof. > Netflix is still interested in net neutrality because they are not as dominant and because they will face competition from ISPs who are also content providers now. Comcast owns NBC Universal. No, Netflix is not interested in NN - see it paying for VZ transit to just VZ, i.e. buying access. Long time ago, in a galaxy far away there was a CTO ran company that fought for NN well before it was fashionable. The company's name was AboveNet and CTO's name was Dave Rand. The company carried a large percentage of the Internet traffic at the time and he would still play hardball with the likes of Sprint, DT, UUNET/MCI worldcom etc. From that point on not a single company that claimed or currently claims to be supporter of NN has not even tried to put its money where its mouth is. [Edit: after the downvotes ] Really? Google is your friend. http://time.com/2838570/verizon-netflix-feud-streaming-speeds/ http://time.com/2838570/verizon-netflix-feud-streaming-speed... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-packets-being-dropped-every-day-because-verizon-wants-more-money/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netfl... http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-agrees-to-pay-verizon-for-direct-connections-1201166187/ http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-agrees-to-pay-v... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level3-proves-that-verizon-is-absolutely-to-blame-netflix-congestion-using-verizons-own-data.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level... [Another edit: since some people would point that they called it peering ] Paying transit rates to access only routes originated by the AS group of VZ is not peering - it is transit.