13 ms·
Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam
- jusben1369 13y agoHard to underestimate the ramifications of an agreement like this. Many would say this is the market acting in the way it should.
- karmajunkie 13y agoI'd say my internet provider is fucking me over in failing to provide me with reliable connectivity I'm paying for. But that's just me.
- badman_ting 13y agoYeah, that sounds like the market I'm familiar with.
- aaronblohowiak 13y agoLocal Cable companies are not a free competitive market; they are state-sanctioned local monopolies.
- res0nat0r 13y agoActually they are natural monopolies.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dllthomas 13y agoCan't they be both?
- justincormack 13y agoThe cabling is a natural monopoly. Who is allowed to service you over it is not. Thats why many countries have some degree of unbundling of service and provision of wires, eg I can get many providers of ADSL here over the same phone lines that are owned by a monopoly provider. Alas not for fibre though yet (UK).
- res0nat0r 13y agoWhy would Verizon want to spend 10 million wiring up your neighborhood and potentially not get you as a customer in an area where Comcast has already spent 10 million to do so? Also why should Comcast be forced to let competitors use their infrastructure they've spent massive amounts of money on building and maintaining?
- toast0 13y agoIf service is provided over Verizon or Comcast lines, they would still get paid for that. If they provide internet over their lines, they would get paid more. (Unless they operate their wholesale system like AT&T did, with wholesale access prices above retail prices including internet... grumble)
- gergles 13y agoLittle bit from my sibling response and a little bit more from the fact that they drained the ratepayers, government (through tax credits and accelerated depreciation), and the USF to the tune of $200 billion to provide universal broadband access (which they didn't do.) We paid for the network, anybody selling transit across it should be able to use it.
- res0nat0r 13y agoWho agreed to pay for what, where?
- TranceMan 13y agoI only became aware that you can get Fibre from other providers this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7271128
- nodata 13y agoWith a monopolist ISP? How are they arguing that one?
- zeckalpha 13y agoIs there a non pay-walled version available? This may mark the end of net neutrality.
- f00_ 13y agohttp://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579401071892041790?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304834704579401071892041790.html http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230483470... I think links with Google as a referrer show you the whole article.
- cwisecarver 13y agohttp://bit.ly/NoS35l http://bit.ly/NoS35l Just google the headline, they allow access to requests with google referrers.
- matt_heimer 13y agohttp://arstechnica.com/business/2014/02/netflix-is-paying-comcast-for-direct-connection-to-network-wsj-reports/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/02/netflix-is-paying-co...
- pushrax 13y agoHere's a direct link using Google as the referrer: http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+End+Traffic+Jam&btnI http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+En...
- jaggederest 13y agoWow, Netflix has decided to negotiate with the terrorists? I'm pretty disappointed. Edit: Having read more of the non-paywalled version, I have to say I think they're shooting themselves in the foot, even if Comcast was offering a better price than Cogent. It sets a terrible precedent, and gives Comcast the leverage to bump the price extortionately at the end of the deal.
- middleclick 13y agoAs much as I hate the ISPs, calling them terrorists is a bit too much.
- jaggederest 13y agoI'm just using a metaphor. It's all business, but the game theory version is that by even engaging with them here, you legitimize the tactics and have to continue to pay up every time anyone comes calling. Kipling has a cogent explanation of it in poetry form: http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html
- strictfp 13y agoActually, the way I see it, further inflation in the word 'terrorist' can only be good.
- sliverstorm 13y agoThat sounds like something a word-terrorist would say.
- mcintyre1994 13y agoIt is too much to compare them to what terrorists do, but let's face it - this could lead to more damage to the internet than terrorists could ever do.
- venomsnake 13y ago
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- cwisecarver 13y agoI thought Comcast had to follow the net neutrality rules until 2018 regardless of that court decision a few weeks ago... Is this NFLX caving because nobody is enforcing the rules Comcast agreed to? (Edited for englishy)
- wmf 13y agoThe net neutrality rules were written to correct/prevent the abuses that were discovered around 2005. Since then ISPs have invented new loopholes (like targeted non-upgrading) that technically aren't covered by the old net neutrality rules.
- higherpurpose 13y agoAre the insane? Why would they agree to this weeks after the net neutrality case, and not wait at least until they see what Congress and FCC want to do about it? The only other explanation is that they may actually like this, because they know it would slow down a lot of their smaller competitors coming after them. It's even stranger when you think that customers must've blamed Comcast for their poor Netflix experience lately, not Netflix.
- callahad 13y agoNetflix could also be seeing declining engagement or subscription metrics for customers on Comcast.
- cullenking 13y agoI already had thoughts of dropping netflix due to their streaming quality. It's gotten so bad in the last three or four months that it was like I regressed to watching downloaded xvid's.
- twoodfin 13y agoHow would Net Neutrality help here? Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix vs. other content, they were refusing to build bigger pipes to Cogent.
- angersock 13y agoWait wait wait...so, a company that has something like 60-70% of the market in total monopoly now has successfully ransomed another company who depends on their services? Motherfuckers.
- briandh 13y agoWhere are you getting those numbers? It would seem [1] that Comcast has about 24% broadband market share. Subtracting the 3 million or so planned divested lines, even a post-merger Comcast would only have about 34% of the market -- which may be too high for comfort, but is nowhere near 60-70% [1] http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/usbroadbandsubscribersq12013.jpg http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/usbroadbandsubscr...
- wmf 13y agoEach coverage area is a separate market, and AFAIK cable companies have 60-70% share within their areas (mostly because cable is so much less bad than DSL, so the market is working somewhat).
- infocollector 13y agoI guess they had to pick between Lawyers vs Comcast.
- RyanZAG 13y agoThis is actually good for Netflix and terrible for any competition. While Netflix probably has to hand over a bit of money, they are in a much better position to do so than any of their competitors as they're the biggest. In effect this creates a massive entry barrier into the video streaming market. You will now likely need to set up a massive infrastructure and pay massive bribes to various internet providers to be able to compete. So this is probably a smart move by Netflix by creating entry barriers that they should be able to easily pass on to consumers if they can achieve market dominance.
- wmf 13y agoOr you could just use an existing CDN that's already paying the bribes.
- kev009 13y agoBingo. The real story here is that Netflix is trying hard to get off third-party CDNs and that's what is inflicting a lot of the problems lately. I'm sure they figure it out eventually, as they found one solution here, but the internetworking business is a lot harder than it seems on first glance and not something you should try to wing.
- danielsiders 13y agoNot so much established and highly capitalized competition (like Amazon), but disastrous for startups and new entrants. It adds a major barrier to entry in the form of a b2b paywall before you can reach consumers.
- _delirium 13y agoIsn't that's already the case by default? My read of this is that they're paying Comcast directly because it's cheaper than the conventional route of paying for commodity transit via a regular ISP (though more expensive than their preferred solution, a no-fee peering arrangement). As a new entrant I don't have much choice but to pay for commodity transit: Comcast is not going to peer directly with me anyway (or let me park my CDN boxes on their network, for that matter), so I need to pay the transit ISP. If I do so, am I at any disadvantage? Afaict, if I'm a new entrant who sets up colocation at he.net, say, and pay he.net for transit, I won't have any trouble getting my data to Comcast users.
- brown9-2 13y agoWell now every other ISP is considering doing what Comcast just did.
- vxxzy 13y ago"The gravy-train has ended." -Major ISPs So much for net neutrality. Now ISPs have another way to make more $$. Keep those profits higher - push smaller streaming services out.
- scelerat 13y agoAnd so the precedent is set. This is the direction I see things going: For $70 a month from Comcast you can get Amazon, Google, and Facebook. For only $10 more a month you can add Netflix and Spotify. Want Pandora? Sorry, you'll have to switch to AT&T for that. The broadband providers are used to this type of packaged service given their history as cable television providers. It's how they make their money beyond providing simple connectivity. Their future expansion and profits are linked to their ability to create exclusivity and extract revenue based on targeted demand. I don't see any other way around this. Absent regulations prohibiting packet discrimination, I'm not sure I would do any different if I were in Comcast's shoes.
- bbosh 13y ago> I don't see any other way around this. Vote with your feet.
- rosser 13y agoThat's not an option for entirely too many people to be meaningful.
- westernmostcoy 13y agoIt's not really a free market to end consumers. To change cable companies, I have to go for some WiMax/Wifi type ISP (lower quality in most cases), DSL (also lower quality in most cases), or move my residence to somewhere in the service area for another cable company.
- saryant 13y agoSo I should just disconnect myself from the internet? Because it's either Comcast or a DSL provider that won't give me a straight answer as to whether or not they service my address. And this is in Boulder.
- mkempe 13y agoInterestingly, Boulder forced a few years ago the electric utility (Xcel) to bring fiber to the vast majority of houses in town, but the fiber sits unused because it was intended for realtime metering solutions and the town & utility gave up on that goal. Imagine if that fiber were used as a community network! Unfortunately, the town is not planning to do this -- they've excluded the fiber from their plans to take over the Xcel infrastructure.
- aleem 13y agoLink without paywall: http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees to+Pay+Comcast+to+End+Traffic+Jam&btnI
- pushrax 13y agoFor purposes of easy clicking, here's the same link without the space: http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+End+Traffic+Jam&btnI http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+En...
- ck2 13y agoOh this doesn't bode well.
- kokey 13y agoWhile many make reference to the mythical creature Net Neutrality, I think at best this will be mostly a way for Comcast to enjoy some time for extra revenue and perhaps a chance to develop a closer partnership with a company like Netflix. They could use the extra revenue to improve their network and the relationship to give them a fighting chance when local access monopolies are broken through new access options.
- wj 13y agoThey could use the money to improve their network...but likely won't. I recall the federal government providing billions to the cable companies in the 90s for high speed broadband that never materialized.
- gnoway 13y agoI think what I'm seeing is that Netflix doesn't really care about neutrality beyond its ability to enable their business. Which is basically what we as consumers should have assumed from the start.
- callesgg 13y agoThe weirdest shit is that people are okay with it, at least enough to not do anything about it.
- itsprofitbaron 13y agoBeyond looking at the implications for Net Neutrality (since we don't really know the implications of this deal going forward in relation to this); for people who are wondering why this has happened, this looks like this is part of Netflix's Open Connect Project[1] which is a single-purpose CDN network - and is essentially a paid-peering deal. As part of the Open Connect Project, Netflix has deployed servers which are hundreds of terabytes in size in strategic locations all over the work and they contain ~60-90% of the data required for that particular country. These devices either live in the ISP (which is what Netflix wanted to happen with Comcast) or live in an internet exchange where multiple ISPs can connect to the Open Connect devices. There are 3 core benefits in doing this: - Better Streaming due to fewer hops to the client - Netflix avoids rate limiting (if they're inside the ISP Network) - Peering is free (usually) and is essentially where two ISPs connect their infastructure and agree to maintain their own sites without bandwidth charges. It's common throughout the industry and content-providers are always looking to peer with ISPs to drive down their overall costs of operations. [1] http://openconnect.netflix.com http://openconnect.netflix.com
- tzakrajs 13y agoNetflix does not use AWS to move video bits, but yes it will save them money on CDN costs.
- pirateking 13y agoI have been waiting 4 years to switch to Sonic Fusion, but I am too far from the CO. I wish there was some way to take local action to help them expand to my area. I know many people would be interested.
- jasonkostempski 13y agoGlad I don't have to deal with Comcast but I'm canceling Netflix if this is true.
- pcurve 13y agoGiven Netflix and Youtube account for rougly 50% of peak time traffic, I wonder if Google will also follow suit. I'm all for net neutrality, but I think Netflix should've been paying some usage fee into a communal fund that is off-limit to ISPs, but can be used to improve broadband quality for everyone.
- danielrhodes 13y agoGoogle owns a lot of backbone so they can do a peering agreement with Comcast/Level 3 which would be mutually beneficial. Netflix has nothing to offer in terms of peering, so their attempt at getting similar terms is just a negotiating tactic.
- pasbesoin 13y agoIn addition to the absurd, outsized cost, I don't want to pay Comcast et al. -- directly or indirectly -- these extorted prices, because they turn around and spend from these enormous profit margins to further constrain and "prioritize" my use. The only solution, is to cut off this excess profit that has become the lifeblood of this systematic abuse. And where these oligopolies have essentially captured the market to the point of excluding any and all competition: End them, legally. Break them up. Specifically legalize and perhaps even foster municipal broadband. There may be no ultimate, static solution. But there are definitely next steps, and they are overdue.
- andyl 13y agoWow. Net neutrality is dead. Here comes Google fiber (with it's own selective routing...) I'm thinking of switching to Sonic.net - they seem to respect Net neutrality. Does anyone have Sonic.net experience pro or con ??
- w1ntermute 13y agoI refuse to play this game - I'm back to torrenting.
- zackmorris 13y agoOr better yet, let someone else do the work for you: http://watch32.com http://watch32.com I'm curious to see how this plays out because the endgame for the internet is free-fast-failsafe. I wonder how long it will take for companies to litigate themselves into irrelevance. I actually feel kind of bad for netflix in this case, because when you make a deal with the devil, he always wins, and I hate to see them go someday :-(
- w1ntermute 13y ago> Or better yet, let someone else do the work for you: > http://watch32.com http://watch32.com Unfortunately, this (and most other similar) sites use Flash, something I'm trying to avoid[0]. They also tend to have only low-quality, grainy video (not that Netflix is much better even when buffering isn't an issue). There is also the issue of these sites/videos coming and going. If they host the files on 3rd party platforms (like this site is doing), then once the site is popular those videos quickly get taken down. Then you're stuck clicking through trying to find that one site (if there's even one left) that still hasn't taken down the video. OTOH, if the files are self-hosted, then when the site becomes popular, it can no longer support the bandwidth costs, and goes under. Torrent sites, however, have lasted for years. I've been using the same private torrent site for nearly a decade. It's reliable and fast, and it has a wide selection of content, both old and new. And I never have to deal with Flash. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7287151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7287151
- linuxhansl 13y agoSo it begins. The end of the neutral internet. I am already paying Comcast for access to the internet! Why does Netflix have to pay on top it? That said, I have Netflix and Comcast and I have never experienced any issues. Edit: Actually I realize, this is an agreement to allow Netflix to colocate some of their servers at Comcast hubs. So it is not actually that bad.
- smutticus 13y agoIt's only a problem for Americans, not the entire Internet.
- insaneirish 13y ago> The end of the neutral internet. "Neutral" is a vague term that in this circumstance conveys no actual meaning. Settlement free peering is the exception, not the rule. Almost everyone pays for access to the Internet, whether it's buying transit or peering with settlement. Nothing new to see here, move along.
- ffk 13y agoThis might not be an anti-net neutrality deal. Here are the details we know at this point: 1. Netflix is currently using Cogent 2. Comcast offered them a direct connection to their network via paid-peering. 3. Netflix agreed and will move over. 4. Nothing about net neutrality was mentioned in the article. This deal is being referred to as paid-peering. Peering is a practice performed at ISPs where two ISPs hook up infrastructure and agree to maintain their sides without charging for bandwidth. Peering is a common practice among the industry, and content-providers are always looking for ways to peer with more ISPs because it drives down their overall cost of operations. The article says nothing about net neutrality. We don't have enough information to say whether net neutrality was harmed in this deal. We can only speculate at this time. Hopefully we will hear more from Netflix on this. [edit to fix list formatting]
- ivanca 13y agoYou don't seem to understand: This is not a technical issue; is a conceptual one, people are not going to read the details of the deal, rather to grab the idea and slowly believe that paying for better connection with a site/ISP is normal.
- MichaelGG 13y ago>rather to grab the idea and slowly believe that paying for better connection with a site/ISP is normal. Is is normal. ISPs are not equal. There's a reason you pay Level(3) a lot more than HE.
- eli 13y agoWhat's the real difference between holding peering connections for ransom versus implementing packet-level QoS?
- nutjob123 13y agoI'm going to start my own ISP. Anyone want to invest?
- iLoch 13y agoI'm sold, nutjob123.
- JohnTHaller 13y agoNetflix and other streaming services should not engage in these types of contracts. They should instead detect slowdowns and notify customers of the slowdown and to call their provider to fix it, resulting in increased support costs, customer attrition, etc for the provider. Peering should remain a 50/50 split between the major peers. Just because Comcast and Verizon are sitting there refusing to turn the ports on until you cough up $ (basically a hostage negotiation) doesn't mean you should.
- cheald 13y ago> Just because Comcast and Verizon are sitting there refusing to turn the ports on until you cough up $ (basically a hostage negotiation) doesn't mean you should. Would you please enlighten me as to why an ISP should be required to provide access to a resource they aren't being compensated for?
- cdash 13y agoBecause their customers are paying for it.
- cheald 13y agoNope. ISP customers pay for last-mile infrastructure and access to the connection that the ISP has brokered with larger traffic carriers, whatever that may be. You should read up on peering agreements.
- JohnTHaller 13y agoAnd part of that payment is for the ISP's peering agreements with other providers. Why would I pay just to connect to Verizon? I want my connection beyond Verizon to the peer networks hosting Netflix, Facebook, YouTube, etc. No customer would only pay for the last mile if that's all they got.
- cheald 13y ago
- santosha 13y agoNot entirely sure why this is such a big deal. Peering agreements happen all the time. Lots of large services peer directly with consumer ISPs because it's cheaper and more efficient than using intermediary transit. This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Comcast is not throttling or discriminating traffic in any way (at least not publicly). This is a peering dispute settlement. Does this affect competitors to Netflix? Depends on how much volume they have. If their volumes are low, they can still reliably use transit providers more economically. As their revenue increases, they'll need their own backbone network, but their ability to pay for it goes up too. Is Comcast big, bad and evil? Probably. But not in this case. Comcast dealing directly with Netflix is good for both parties. They are entitled to charge Netflix to peer directly because most traffic is going to flow into Comcast's network from Netflix. They also probably had a case negotiating away from settlement-free agreements with Cogent for the same reason. Again, none of this is out of the ordinary, ASes negotiate peering deals with each other all the time based on the volume and direction of the traffic they exchange with each other, and this is all fairly unregulated. Net neutrality is irrelevant in all of this, it only matters if Comcast actively discriminates between traffic at their end. This deal is not connected to the ruling.
- gergles 13y agoComcast is a residential ISP. What possible traffic could there be to flow out of their network, other than requests for other data? By that logic, everyone has to pay to peer with Comcast because "Ha ha, we have all the customers. Darn, it sure is a shame that our customers don't have any data to send to you. Darn it, we really wish we could do free peering, but we just can't, aw, darn it. [cue South Park cable company responses]" No, what happened was Comcast discovered another place they could fuck over the customer - by charging for peering even though it benefits their customers to not do so, and decided to spin it into some way that makes people feel like Comcast was somehow being injured by Netflix under the old settlement-free peering model.
- santosha 13y agoNeither Comcast nor Netflix are trying to operate a non-profit, it's a payment dispute between two large companies who disagree over who should pay. You could just as well argue that Netflix was letting Cogent / Comcast fight it out instead of directly peering with ISPs which benefits customers.
- willvarfar 13y agoReminds me of the classic article http://boingboing.net/2007/09/22/how-a-nonneutral-isp.html http://boingboing.net/2007/09/22/how-a-nonneutral-isp.html with a classic "infographic" http://craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg http://craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg
- danielrhodes 13y agoFor those of you not famaliar with how peering agreements work, usually somebody will get one of the backbone providers to give them bandwidth in exchange for connecting the backbone provider to other peers. It's ideal when there is an equal exchange here and no money is involved. Netflix wants something different: they want to peer directly with Comcast/TWC/Verizon but not provide any network in exchange. For such an arrangement, it is fair that a network would charge them for this access.
- TranceMan 13y agoThere is another way: http://www.open-ix.org/ http://www.open-ix.org/
- azinman2 13y agoNOOOO! They took you hostage netflix and you gave in! Only bad will come from this...
- runn1ng 13y agoCapitalism wins again!
- valas 13y agoComcast Profit Jumps 28.6% on Growth of Broadband: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/business/media/comcast-profit-jumps-26-on-growth-of-broadband.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/business/media/comcast-pro...
- hoggle 13y agoDid they just break the internet?
- Ihmahr 13y agoFor everyone in Europe: Monday evening there will be a vote on net neutrality. CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE http://www.savetheinternet.eu/ http://www.savetheinternet.eu/ (dutch) https://www.bof.nl/2014/02/21/maandag-d-day-voor-netneutraliteit/ https://www.bof.nl/2014/02/21/maandag-d-day-voor-netneutrali... Explain your concerns to them.
- gtirloni 13y agoOne way to make this ugly real fast is for content providers like Netflix/Amazon to completely block subscribers from ISPs that apply QoS to negatively impact them. Say something like "we can't provide a great experience so we think you should have no experience at all because it wouldn't be fair with us and with you. we are sorry." and make it explicit that it's because of the ISP they are using. The ISP think they are selling gold when they are more likely selling a commodity. Sure, at some locations it's indeed like gold, but how much of that is artificially enforced? These pipes aren't worth much if there is no content flowing through them.
- MichaelGG 13y agoSo your expectation is that if Netflix intentionally prevents users from using their service because they don't like the user's choice of ISP, that will turn out well for Netflix?
- gtirloni 13y agoIf you want to ignore all the details in this discussion, how much power each company has and how much they're willing to leverage it.. sure, go ahead. The whole net neutrality discussion is a power play between content providers and fiber owners, nothing else. The discussion about freedom and competition is awesome (and right!), but at the end it's these two huge groups fighting each other while we are screaming "think of the children!". What Netflix would be losing if a subset of their customers on provider X is already getting crappy service and it can't do anything about that? At some point they will have to decide what to do about all those complaints and refund requests.
- MichaelGG 13y agoWhat would Netflix be losing? A lot of customers? And handing all of them over to Comcast's on-demand service. It'd be a massive win for Comcast. There's no net neutrality issue in this discussion at all. Comcast is simply declining to upgrade its peering with Cogent. How is that net neutrality? If Netflix comes to me tomorrow and decides to buy all their transit through me, is Comcast somehow required to give me lots of free peering? Netflix might be the majority(?) of Cogent's traffic, and Comcast might decide that it's not worth upgrading the connections for them. But as long as Comcast isn't discriminating traffic on their end (via some traffic shaping mechanism, I'd guess), then it's simply a matter of "Comcast thinks Cogent has enough connectivity, and sees no reason for them to upgrade the connections while getting nothing in return". Their customers may disagree, but it up to them to not buy the service. (Perhaps the real problem here is lack of competition in the ISP market?)
- ulfw 13y agoGoodbye Net Neutrality :(
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mpg33 13y agoWill the telecommunications industry ever become competitive? The barrier of entry seems just too high with the amount of infrastructure it takes.
- skywhopper 13y agoThis is a terrible precedent to set, and if it's true, I'm very disappointed in Netflix. Comcast is vulnerable right now since it's seeking to merge with TWC. Now's the time to pull out the big guns and show Congress, the FTC, and the citizens of the US why net neutrality is important. But instead of taking advantage, they cave and even pay off Comcast in what's essentially extortion. A disturbing vision of the future broken Internet to come.
- cenhyperion 13y agoNet neutrality is dead. The FCC has failed us.
- rjd 13y agoHeres what I would be trying if I was netflix. Probably sure I'd have trouble pushing it against the rest of the company but I'd try this: 1) Collect evidence of network tampering/filtering 2) Get agreement in place to pay for better service 3) Collect the rest of the evidence that network filtering was in place when it gets lifted. 4) Simultaneously hit comcast up for breaching the neutrality agreements, while notifying all comcast customers that comcast is forcing netflix to charge its customers more for access.. that it might have to be along to them to pay... but we are working on ways yo prevent it. Try and squeeze comcast from both ends at once and public embarrass them, while trying to keep the higher ground, looking like the peoples hero, under dog etc... I doubt many companies would take that risk, but that what I'd try.
- jonknee 13y agoThey have already done 1 and 2. The problem is #4 isn't possible because there aren't neutrality agreements to breach. Comcast provides shit service to Netflix and that's perfectly legal.
- ivanca 13y agoWe need to do something guys. Probably this falls under some monopoly law or practice against free market because it hurts way too much all the current (and future) Netflix competition.
- amirmansour 13y agoThis is anti-competitive. It is clearly unconstitutional. I hope the FCC still has a chance to compensate for their shortcomings.
- wnevets 13y agoOnly america can you charge twice for the same product
- MichaelGG 13y agoI've got a site. It has large files. Is Comcast required to provide free peering for me? Where do I sign up for my 10GbE port (my site's small so 10G is enough)? Oh wait, I buy from a friend who runs an ISP. Turns out, he only has a single 10G connection for all his customers. Can he call Comcast for a free peering arrangement now? That's not how things work.
- swasheck 13y agoHooray for the free and open market!! It's not extortion, it's capitalistic innovation!!
- otterley 13y agoThis deal doesn't seem as bad as many make it out to be. The agreement appears to consist of a an interconnection arrangement between Comcast's backbone and Netflix's streaming POPs. Prior to the agreement, the traffic was routed through Cogent, and Comcast didn't want to increase the interconnection bandwidth with Cogent. I don't see this as a blow to Net Neutrality, assuming the deal is as described.
- clubhi 13y agoI just cancelled my netflix subscription. I hope you do the same. Let them know why.
- massysett 13y agoI did, about a week ago, due to poor picture quality and a library barely better than Amazon Prime, which I pay for anyway for the shipping. Had they made this Comcast deal a few weeks ago I probably would have kept them if the picture quality were better, but now that I've cancelled I won't bother to sign up again to see if it improves. I was surprised that when I cancelled I didn't even get a single form asking why. Netflix is $8 a month for all you can stream, so I suppose I can't expect any more than a poor library of B movies and old TV shows. It's not up to me how Netflix and Comcast sort out their business disputes. Netflix was not delivering service that was worth their measly $8 a month.
- ghshephard 13y agoUnsaid among all this - Netflix could have simply paid a higher quality transit provider (Level 3) to provide them transit, and there wouldn't have been any problems (Level 3 maintains some headroom on their peering circuits). The reality is that it was likely cheaper for Netflix to just pay for peering with Comcast directly.
- cdash 13y agoThey have, and guess what? The same shit happened. Its almost like everywhere they go Comcast ends up doing this, kind of like they are specifically targeting Netflix.
- ghshephard 13y ago"They have, and guess what? The same shit happened." What are you referring to? Comcast and Netflix just started peering a few days ago.
- byrgvt 13y agoExcuse me if I'm wrong but I think the parent might be referring to a 2010 dispute between Comcast and Level 3 regarding settlement free peering (a lot of the direct Level 3 or Comcast links seem dead now but some summary articles I can find are [1] and [2]). From these summary articles, the dispute happened after Level 3 agreed to become a CDN for Netflix. One tangent that I don't know where else to ask is: why would an ISP agree to peer with Netflix, if Netflix weren't paying them. Reading about openconnect makes it seem that Netflix wants free peering. My understanding of the situation is as follows. 1) Settlement free peering agreement are equivalent to free peering agreements. 2) Companies agree to these if they send roughly the same amount of traffic in both directions. So I'll agree to peer with you if I want to send ~N GB of traffic through your network and you want to send ~N GB through mine. 3) (and this is where I'm really unsure what I'm talking about) Anyone who peers with Netflix deals with handling traffic from Netflix to it's customers. But what traffic goes the other way? What traffic would an ISP send through Netflix network to make the relationship mutually beneficial? Isn't it just the normal way of things that content producers pay ISP to send traffic through their networks? Thanks for any clarifications! [1]http://www.telecompetitor.com/level-3comcast-dispute-revives-eyeball-vs-content-debate/ http://www.telecompetitor.com/level-3comcast-dispute-revives... and [2]http://www.telecompetitor.com/behind-the-level-3-comcast-peering-settlement/ http://www.telecompetitor.com/behind-the-level-3-comcast-pee...
- jason_slack 13y agoI talked to a Comcast Loyalty Agent 2 days ago about my troubles keeping Netflix going on my devices and was told that Comcast has "superior" Netflix performance and if I am having any trouble it certainly isn't Comcast.
- piyush_soni 13y agoAny link where we don't have to login after reading the first three lines?
- SilverSurfer972 13y agoI am getting tired of those news websites requiring you to register and login to read their content
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- zavi 13y agoPaid peering is frowned upon, but it happens all the time. This is not a threat to net neutrality.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- specialp 13y agoCogent has had peering disputes not only with consumer ISPs like Comcast, but with nearly every other tier one provider out there. Cogent is known to provide very cheap bandwidth but on the flip side they are also known to not be a mutually beneficial partner for settlement free peering. If you have cogent as a provider you should know this. Netflix knows that and thus has offered to provide settlement to Comcast to get better peering rather than be in the overcrowded Cogent link.
- RRRA 13y agoHaven't they shot themselves (and everyone else!) in the foot?
- wudf 13y ago"Comcast is getting paid by Netflix? I want to be paid by Netflix too!" -every other ISP
- zapman449 13y agoWhat I don't understand is why Comcast refused to put NetFlix's CDN gear into their network/DC setup. That would solve the problem...
- Sweeet 13y agoHow would you feel about someone putting their equipment on your private network? What if the equipment they install is low quality? who gets the blame? Who is in charge of QOS? It is not as simple as you think
- shmerl 13y agoThat was their whole point, isn't it? To extort a toll for going over the bridge. A a classic trolling method.
- gcb0 13y agothis. is. awesome! hollywood pressures comcast. comcast shakedown netflix. netflix offers money to comcast, comcast and hollywood is pleased. so far it sucks... but then: netflix pass that as tax to user. users flee from comcast. new providers appears. hollywood cant shake them down. for the first time, ISP in america have a truly competitive market. the end.
- nej 13y agoI think Netflix should've just announced to it's customers that Comcast was throttling their network speeds before doing this. It is the same way that current companies in the US ask you to write to your legislatures about unfair policy changes, the most recent one I can think of in California is the public/private ban they're trying to pass on electronic cigarettes which I believe is still going on.
- Corrado 13y agoAnother, non-paywalled, link is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and...
- beauzero 13y agoThey just killed the internet.
- Sweeet 13y agoYou guys need to understand that the slow streaming that netflix had problems with is actually netflix fault. They choose to use the cheapest peer possible(cogent). So them paying comcast to be a direct peer makes complete sense as comcast will not be sending 1/1000th of the traffic it is recieving on these peering connections. This has nothing to do with you having to pay more to stream other services. It has to do with netflix finally deciding to stop placing blame and further their own product.
- cordite 13y agoI want to see Comcast try to throttle Google, Facebook, et al. and see how it ends up in court.