13 ms·

The Case Against ISP Tolls

398 points by acgourley 13y ago

mikekij 13y ago
Reading this actually makes me hope that Facebook gets their wifi-beaming balloons up and running quickly. I'd like to support Comcast as little as humanly possible.
- 01Michael10 13y ago
  I think it is actually Google looking to deploy Wi-Fi beaming balloons and Facebook is looking at solar powered drones. I vote for Google over drones...
  - freehunter 13y ago
    >I vote for Google over drones Why is what? Are they any different? Are you balking at the word "drone"? How about "unmanned aircraft", which describes both Google and Facebook's approach? It's not like Facebook will be using the same "drones" the Air Force uses to bomb ground targets.
    - 01Michael10 13y ago
      I know Facebook's drones are not the same as the military drones but... The idea of using "drones" leaves a bad taste in my mouth since they are currently used as immoral killing machines. I do agree with robszumski that drones may be a better bet then balloons. Hope Google provides the service as I prefer them as a company. Yes, both are data mining beasts but at least Google does some cool things and they have services I actually use. Not one Facebook service comes to mind that I use...
      - freehunter 13y ago
        That's what I was expecting you'd say, but I had really hoped I was wrong. Again, a drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle, so Google is using drones as well. In the comparison with military drones, you might as well say you don't want to see Google's balloons because the Hindenburg was such a disaster. Completely different beast. I would wager that there are more drones out there being used for entertainment than there are being used for killing... we call them quadricopters and you can buy them at Wal Mart.
        01Michael10 13y ago
        Your repeating yourself and I am being down-voted? No sh*t there are different types of drones. I simply meant they leave a bad taste in my mouth because how they are mostly being used now but did acknowledge drones may be a better bet then balloons. Oh, the Hindenburg is a bad analogy as it's purpose wasn't to target people from the sky to kill, it was an accident. Now, if Google is going to be using Hydrogen instead of Helium in their balloons like the Hindenburg then you would have a point.
        freehunter 13y ago
        If Facebook was using missiles in their airplanes instead of wifi, you might have a point.
  - robszumski 13y ago
    The correct way to look at this is to think of the drones as very low, maneuverable satellites, not airplanes. They're up in unregulated airspace above airliners and above most weather. The lower you are, the lower the latency. Think of a laser-based optical network that connects the drones, with laser links going down to earth as well. When you think of the control required to ensure a quality of service and full coverage, the balloons seems like a terrible solution.
- wmf 13y ago
  Neither balloons or drones are going to be fast enough to watch Netflix.
  - TTPrograms 13y ago
    IIRC freespace light based transmission has beaten a couple of Gbps.
  - beamatronic 13y ago
    I wish there was a service that would just let me rent discs through the mail.
notdonspaulding 13y ago
Comcast can do what it does because Democrats portray the company as a problem with capitalism, while Republicans portray it as a problem with regulation. In truth, it's both. It's a problem where a company has co-opted well-meaning regulation to snuff out competition, which is a thing capitalist companies do. Meanwhile, citizens point the finger at each other instead of removing Comcast's ability to monopolize. Either the regulations that make competing as an ISP difficult need to be stripped out (my personal favorite), or the last mile needs to be public property. Either way, Comcast getting to be the only one sitting on that last-mile connection is what has given rise to its stranglehold on the internet. We need to support fixing this on a local/state level. Support smaller ISPs in their attempts to disrupt the incumbents, and support legislation that actually encourages innovation in the marketplace (even if that means striking policies from the law books).
- maxsilver 13y ago
  As someone who's trying to bootstrap a small, local, last-mile ISP right now, my only wish is that there were many more people that held your opinion on this matter, and were willing to back that opinion with their dollars.
  - opendais 13y ago
    Where is this ISP? :) May I suggest a link in your profile?
    - maxsilver 13y ago
      Grand Rapids, Michigan. (And, if I'm ever successful and allowed to dream, Seattle would be my next target) Thanks for the suggestion, I updated my profile.
      - opendais 13y ago
        Ah, I'm thousands of miles away. Best of luck with your project!
      - deleted 13y ago
higherpurpose 13y ago
This could be the right time for Netflix to move to P2P, so then most of the bandwidth isn't consumed by them, but by their users. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-switched-p2p-video-streaming-180229987.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-switched-p2p-video-str... It's going to take a lot to fight the likes of Comcast in this one, which means Netflix will also need support from the community - so Netflix, please stop it with the boneheaded DRM push on the web. Guess what, if you are going to use P2P, you're going to need a plugin or native app anyway. So just stop trying to corrupt W3C already in a pointless move that can't and won't stop piracy anyway (which I'm sure you already know).
- freehunter 13y ago
  Is it Netflix fighting for DRM, or is it the content creators demanding DRM and Netflix simply wanting to move to HTML5 while still being able to continue licensing shows from the creators.
- wmf 13y ago
  P2P would shift the congestion from transit links to shared upstream last mile links which will probably make ISPs even more unhappy.
  - kiallmacinnes 13y ago
    it would also shift the cost to consumers.. at least once you use up your data cap.
    - deegles 13y ago
      Unless you're using your ISPs video streaming service. :)
    - shakethemonkey 13y ago
      "Though Comcast doesn't disclose it specifically, analysts have estimated that Comcast's profit margins on broadband service are 80 percent or higher. In 2008, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst Craig Moffett estimated Comcast's data margins at 80 percent, and Credit Suisse reported in fall 2010 that Comcast's gross margins on high-speed data were 93 percent." https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/Comcast%20New%20Caps%20Factsheet_FINAL.pdf https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/Comc...
exelius 13y ago
This is a very public battle between two companies about who should shoulder the cost of delivering video to your home. Comcast's argument is that they have built a network at great expense for carrying content that others make a profit from, and they want to capture at least some of that value. Netflix's argument is that they have built a CDN to deliver that content to Comcast's doorstep, and that Comcast won't accept it. In my mind, Netflix charges money for their service and is not entitled to a free ride. The fact remains that running an ISP is not free, and you can't scale out a network faster than the cash flows (of which, yes, profits are a part) allow. But think about this: Netflix has a 36% gross profit margin, and Comcast's cable/Internet business has an 11% gross profit margin. Netflix's cost structure is lower in large part because Comcast does a lot of the expensive work for them (i.e. last-mile network maintenance and distribution.) Netflix drives significantly increased Internet traffic usage, and Comcast's investors should not have to accept lower profit margins so that Netflix's investors can enjoy larger margins because of investments that Comcast's investors have made. I would have a lot more sympathy for Netflix if their margins weren't so high. It just comes off as greedy when they have a 36% gross margin.
- throwaway2048 13y ago
  You are forgetting one central point, customers pay Comcast to receive netflix. It is their customers requesting this data, if Comcast truely has issues with the costs of this it is customers who should be paying more, not Netflix. The truth of the matter is this has absolutely zero to do with costs, and everything to do with extracting rent via market position.
  - exelius 13y ago
    In this case, Comcast has two choices: raise prices on all their customers, or raise prices on Netflix's customers by charging Netflix for their increased usage. Prior to paying Comcast for transit, if Netflix decided to push 4k streams, that decision carried no repercussions for Netflix. Now they have to do a business case to see if the increased cost is worth it. I know it's not a popular opinion on HN, but I don't think it's unreasonable for Comcast to ask Netflix to shoulder some of the cost. It also has the added benefit of incentivizing Comcast to provide faster service. If they can charge Netflix more for pushing more data, then it directly leads to more profit if their users consume more data.
brianmcdonough 13y ago
The problem is sufficiently complex and boring to favor Comcast. What I would like to know is this: It is already a regional monopoly in high speed internet because no on can touch their speeds, why would anyone consider extending their monopoly nation-wide?
phrasz 13y ago
They should use classic Cable TV vs. Local Broadcasters tactics: Block all IPs from Comcast and force them to pay access to your content...which happens to be the exact amount they want for the Tolls. If we consumers have to pay to access to content why shouldn't ISPs?
- SourPatch 13y ago
  That might work if Netflix had compelling content. Maybe they do, I don't know. But it is not helping Netflix that Comcast is ranked near the top for ISP market share and also owns a ton of its own content (NBC Universal).
- knodi 13y ago
  That would kill Netflix before it hurts Comcast.
fizzbar 13y ago
This image http://www.willchatham.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/net.png http://www.willchatham.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/net.pn... has been making the rounds on reddit, surprised it hasn't appeared here yet. This is the most visceral/succinct explanation of the consequences of allowing the ISPs to have a "fast lane"...
- wmf 13y ago
  The clever thing about Comcast's intentional congestion extortion loophole is that the customer never sees it, so it doesn't look like that image.
- anaphor 13y ago
  That picture makes me almost physically ill
- sschueller 13y ago
  Swisscom in Switzerland was selling their infinity cell service like this: http://xavierstuder.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Swisscom_Infinity_comparais.jpg http://xavierstuder.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Swisscom_... However, even on the slowest plan you can still watch youtube. The only difference between the plans is the speed.
nostromo 13y ago
Netflix and Google and Amazon and Apple should join forces to let Comcast customers know when they're being throttled. "Your video is buffering because Comcast is slowing your connection down. Click here to contact Comcast customer support. Click here to find Netflix Certified providers in your area." Netflix and Google and Amazon and Apple all have great brands with high customer satisfaction. They should utilize all those eyeballs to funnel even more hate toward Comcast.
- xpose2000 13y ago
  I think the real question is... why haven't they already done this? Are they worried about pushback at the political level? Certainly their users would agree.
  - chacham15 13y ago
    In a lot of cases it will do nothing but frustrate users. Why? Because where I live, the only really decent internet is Comcast. If I wanted to change providers, I would go from 16 MB/s internet down to approximately 1 MB/s (advertised speed...so like 1/10th of that in reality).
    - kevinchen 13y ago
      If users get frustrated enough, the public policy on net equality might change. ISPs get away with lobbying, the revolving door, and exclusivity deals with city governments because only techies care.
      - sbarre 13y ago
        Yeah but nobody will be willing to be the ones who suffer horrible or no service in the short term, certainly not long enough to enact the required changes to bring better competition to the areas that Comcast monopolizes.
      - baddox 13y ago
        That's assuming that "the people" have a measurable influence on politics. Plenty of data show that no such influence exists in certain aspects of policy.
dec0dedab0de 13y ago
This makes me so mad. I kind of wish all of the Big Internet providers like Level3, and Sprint would team up and block all traffic in and out of Comcast. Maybe redirect all http traffic to a page listing alternative ISPs.
- johnpowell 13y ago
  There aren't really alternate ISP's. It is Comcast or Centurylink here. And I live in a relatively big city of 200K people.
debian3 13y ago
You only need two or three major website who blackout their services to the Comcast user and redirect them to a page explaining that situation. Imagine if their subscriber can't access to Google and Facebook, and on that redirection page they target ads for alternative provider in your area. Would be nice to see how long Comcast would take to change their mind.
- Cakez0r 13y ago
  What about users who have no alternative to Comcast?
  - knodi 13y ago
    You mean people like me. I hope for a better tomorrow.
- kevinchen 13y ago
  That is incredibly user-hostile. Google and Facebook would end up looking like the bad guys, and nothing would change.
  - debian3 13y ago
    And doing the traffic shaping they did against Netflix is not?
  - falsecelaona 13y ago
    No it is not. ISP throttling their paying customers because of their internal nonsense is user-hostile. Informing consumers that they're being undermined by their ISP is quite possibly the most pro-consumer act you could do. If it gets us one step closer to treating the bandwidth like electricity or water, it's a good thing.
    - kevinchen 13y ago
      Two possibilities from the user's point of view: "Facebook is a little slow because my ISP might be throttling, but I'm not sure, it could also be my computer" "I cannot access Facebook at all because Facebook blocked my ISP" Getting users pissed off at web services is not a good way to effect change. We need users on our side, so we can't have them think of us as crybabies.
pixelcort 13y ago
I think the real problem is unlimited internet connections. If ISP customers paid per-GB and/or per-Mbps, then the ISP shouldn't care if it's Netflix or Hulu or YouTube being consumed. The issue is that today, it's difficult to get a good feel for how much bandwidth is being used at any given moment. Unlike a water faucet, our devices don't really have a knob we can adjust the speed with.
- kalleboo 13y ago
  I think the real problem is poor infrastructure. None of this has been a problem here in Sweden, where the infrastructure is solid and easily supports end users with 100 Mbit home connections without me hearing any complaints.
  - dsjoerg 13y ago
    The quality of infrastructure is the result of political and cultural factors, which are therefore the more underlying/real problem. Do you have a choice of multiple ISPs? If yes, then that's the critical difference vs the U.S., not the infrastructure. If no, then why has your monopoly ISP built such good infrastructure?
    - nolok 13y ago
      France's situation: national public telecom company (France Telecom, now Orange) built the network, private competitors appeared, Orange got privatized, competitors didn't have the network to be everywhere and allow proper competition so the law forced Orange to allow other ISPs to use Orange's network for a fee (so I could be a client of, say, Bouygue Telecom, but using Orange network to join Bouygue's). A huge and easy justification for that is that Orange's network had mostly been built using public funds since it was a public company at the time. Since then, several competitors have built their own network, but most still use Orange's sharing for remote place, small villages etc where it's not worth it for them to deploy their own. So your question is hard to answer. Why has the monopoly ISP built the infrastructure ? Because it was a public company, and if you wanted your house to be connected to the network they had to do it. Why have the others built their own ? Because it was much cheaper for them long term, especially since they also use it for their cellphone network. And from what I see, it seems to be the same in a lot of Europe, the national companies made the original network, and competitors piggy backed on it until they had their own. (I've oversimplified of course, but that's the gist of it)
6cxs2hd6 13y ago
When you think about it, Comcast NBC Universal is doing the same stuff with Aereo. Broadcasters get a government monopoly on a finite resource. Broadcasters don't provide a good signal to all customers. Some customers want to use Aereo (that's not the only reason, but a real reason) instead of paying for cable. But no, the broadcasters want to be paid for not-providing a signal to those customers. Instead of investing to improve their infrastructure, they want to be paid for not improving it. With a straight face. Of course it's especially ridiculous in the case where it's Comcast NBC, and they are also an ISP. If Aereo wins at SCOTUS, and grows big enough, Comcast NBC can get their pound of flesh as an ISP like they do with Netflix. It is all well and truly fscked.
- lessnonymous 13y ago
  > But no, the broadcasters want to be paid for not-providing a signal to those customers. Instead of investing to improve their infrastructure, they want to be paid for not improving it. This is the best one paragraph summary of the Aereo case I've heard. Certainly makes it absolutely plain why it needs to be allowed to continue.
jebblue 13y ago
This: >> "In this way, Comcast is double dipping by getting both its subscribers and Internet content providers to pay for access to each other." ..and this: >> "Put simply, there is one and only one way to reach Comcast’s subscribers at the last mile: Comcast." ...should be illegal. This really torques me. This smacks of how AT&T acted in the 80's when I was in my 20's and starting out on my own and how Microsoft acted in the 90's before they got busted, which is what lead me to Linux.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > ...should be illegal. And Facebook is the only way to reach Facebook's customers. Should that be illegal?
  - pritambaral 13y ago
    Except Facebook's customers use Facebook to access Facebook's data. Comcast's customers use Comcast to access the internet's data, not Comcast's data. At least until the definition of Internet Service Provider is changed.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Not to the extent that Facebook is a platform for other services (Zynga, etc).
andrew93101 13y ago
Has there been discussion of passing this fee on to customers who access from Comcast in the form of a surcharge? If Netflix hiked prices for customers who were connecting from Comcast networks, it would encourage news of this business practice to spread.
clubhi 13y ago
I dropped Netflix about a month ago when I first heard they made this agreement with Comcast. They are part of the problem.
skkbits 13y ago
Is that "tata" from India ? How do they play role here ?
- wmf 13y ago
  Yes, Tata Group from India owns an Internet backbone (formerly VSNL & Teleglobe). Netflix traffic used to go through Tata to get to Comcast until Comcast deliberately congested it.
  - cheald 13y ago
    Could you provide a link for that story? I hadn't heard of it til now.
    - wmf 13y ago
      http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg15911.html http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg15911.html http://www.internap.com/2010/12/02/peering-disputes-comcast-level-3-and-you/ http://www.internap.com/2010/12/02/peering-disputes-comcast-...
naviwins 13y ago
I see all these people saying Comcast was feuding with cogent... that is just not the case. For anyone in the hosting business we all know cogent is the cheapest option, and a pretty spotty service as a whole. What do we do when our customers complain and complain? Well, we seek out more reliable options and spend the money needed better serve our customers. So why does Netflix get to complain? They have already spent the money for the ridiculously one sided peering(Netflix sending tons of traffic and Comcast sending close to none). You would think Netflix would be happy to spend this money to better their service! Right? Or is it so detrimental to their cash flow that they would rather complain? They should have just told their customers "hey, we heard you were having some problems with our service, look what we did for you!" In the end this is just a smear campaign to distract Netflix customers from the price hike that is coming. It is obvious Netflix was going to raise its subscription prices eventually. So why not point the blame to a company who is already disliked. The majority of HN seems to be pretty smart people, it would be a shame if you fell for this rather underhanded ploy.
- josephlord 13y ago
  Who sends traffic is just easier to measure, the person receiving it may want it more and in the Netflix case they are requesting the traffic. In any case all Comcast's traffic is for their customers, when peering needs to be balanced to be free is when to parties are offering transit to other networks beyond themselves.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nkcmr 13y ago
I really hope Netflix has what it takes to do what is necessary if it comes to that point. And what it is going to take is for Netflix to simply blackout Comcast. But actions like that can be easily spun out in the media (media of which has very close ties to Comcast) to make Netflix look bad. What would make it better is for all of the major players (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple) to collectively blackout Comcast, whilst educating the public on how they are being used and screwed at the same time.
zaroth 13y ago
Netflix presumably was paying Cogent a lot of money for all those 10Gbit uplinks. Now a few cross-connects and BGP tweaks later, a traceroute shows Netflix packets leaving a Netflix server and going more directly onto Comcast's network. I can only speculate that they turned on some dark fiber to build cross-connects between their cages and Comcast cages. Maybe they were already in the same building... How much did Netflix's Cogent bill go down? How much of the "work" that Cogent was doing is Netflix now doing themselves? How many hops of the traceroute are owned by Netflix, and how many hops by Comcast? When I rent a rack in One Wilshire in LA, CA, it comes with power, cooling, and a network link. When I pay let's say $1000/mo for that 1Gbps link, it's not just the link from my rack to their router that I'm paying for. And when I send 1Gbps of packets up through that link, it's not just CoreSite at One Wilshire carrying the cost of delivering those packets. At some point, yes, I do expect Comcast to get their "fair share" of that $1k/mo. If Comcast is PAID zero dollars for delivering that 1Gbps, then I want this free bandwidth gravy train to propagate all the way back to me. Comcast, please sign me up for 10 of those free 10Gbe links you're giving out, ok? Just tell me where to rent space where I can get those free 10Gbe cross connects to your network. But then, you can also flip the perspective and ask the question, why doesn't Comcast have to pay for all their bandwidth? Shouldn't they be paying $1,000/mo for their Gbe's? So why does bandwidth cost money, or more specifically when should bandwidth cost money? Price, as always, is just a means of efficiently allocating scarce resources. Price can only possibly be zero if there is no scarcity. Is it possible there's no scarcity of bandwidth on Comcast's network? Now that would be comical! I think the answer lies partially in another development. Ask Netflix to chart the cost in terms of Watts and Rack Units to deliver 1Gbps of video streams. My theory would be the cost in terms of space and electricity to generate 10Gbe of video streams has dropped orders of magnitude. This means bandwidth will be an increasing portion of your bill no matter what. It also puts more pressure on scarcity of bandwidth when the ease of which you can generate 10Gbps of useful traffic is down to just a few servers.
- aidenn0 13y ago
  > If comcast is PAID zero dollars... Comcast gets paid $50/month per subscriber for that bandwidth. It costs Comcast less money to peer with Netflix than to get it from cogent. Comcast wants Netflix to pay to solve a problem that Comcast's customers have. > Is it possible there's no scarcity of bandwidth on Comcast's network? Absolutely! In fact, that's part of what the chart shows; when Netflix peered with Comcast, the video quality (which is a proxy for bitrate to the consumer) went up significantly, which indicates that there was no bottleneck on the Comcast network. > Price ... is just a means of efficiently allocating scarce resources. Not in the case of a monopoly. Comcast has a monopoly on a large fraction of the broadband market. They also compete directly with Netflix, so they will leverage that monopoly to make it as expensive as possible for Netflix to continue to compete with them. This is Comcast creating an artificial scarcity of paths from Netflix to Comcast's customers. On another note, I have referred to Comcast subscribers as "customers" above; if agreements like the above continue, then Comcast subscribers are no longer customers, but rather the product that Comcast charges for efficient access to.
oelmekki 13y ago
Same problem exists in France with the "Free" (actual business name) ISP. It's a large ISP here, and it throttles access to youtube (and probably other content providers). It has been so for years. For some reason, there is no public awareness about that, people just say "my internet is not working well". It's an act of aggression against their customers, to me, since all ISPs are marketing their offers around connection speed. And it's violating net neutrality, too. I don't get how it does not become a major PR problem for ISPs doing that.
- liotier 13y ago
  Not just Iliad's Free - I know first hand that others admit internally that they are doing it too... But they choose to let Free be publicly vocal about it while they are just as violent behind closed doors.
  - oelmekki 13y ago
    Yes, I've heard some vague reports from others ISP users too, but not anything I have measured of even just experienced first hand. That's the reason why I've switched to the new ISP services from ovh, though, as they made net neutrality their first marketing point (but for the same price, you don't have tv, if that matters).
josephlord 13y ago
If Netflix are right an Comcast are providing insufficient connectivity through to all of the major transit networks (rather than just Cogent) it feels to me as if Comcast are not providing the internet connection speeds that they are selling. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Netflix bought from all the many transit providers and spread the load across them, would all of Comcasts general service grind to a halt.

398 points by acgourley 13y ago

Reading this actually makes me hope that Facebook gets their wifi-beaming balloons up and running quickly. I'd like to support Comcast as little as humanly possible.

01Michael10 13y ago
I think it is actually Google looking to deploy Wi-Fi beaming balloons and Facebook is looking at solar powered drones. I vote for Google over drones...
- freehunter 13y ago
  >I vote for Google over drones Why is what? Are they any different? Are you balking at the word "drone"? How about "unmanned aircraft", which describes both Google and Facebook's approach? It's not like Facebook will be using the same "drones" the Air Force uses to bomb ground targets.
  - 01Michael10 13y ago
    I know Facebook's drones are not the same as the military drones but... The idea of using "drones" leaves a bad taste in my mouth since they are currently used as immoral killing machines. I do agree with robszumski that drones may be a better bet then balloons. Hope Google provides the service as I prefer them as a company. Yes, both are data mining beasts but at least Google does some cool things and they have services I actually use. Not one Facebook service comes to mind that I use...
    - freehunter 13y ago
      That's what I was expecting you'd say, but I had really hoped I was wrong. Again, a drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle, so Google is using drones as well. In the comparison with military drones, you might as well say you don't want to see Google's balloons because the Hindenburg was such a disaster. Completely different beast. I would wager that there are more drones out there being used for entertainment than there are being used for killing... we call them quadricopters and you can buy them at Wal Mart.
      - 01Michael10 13y ago
        Your repeating yourself and I am being down-voted? No sh*t there are different types of drones. I simply meant they leave a bad taste in my mouth because how they are mostly being used now but did acknowledge drones may be a better bet then balloons. Oh, the Hindenburg is a bad analogy as it's purpose wasn't to target people from the sky to kill, it was an accident. Now, if Google is going to be using Hydrogen instead of Helium in their balloons like the Hindenburg then you would have a point.
        freehunter 13y ago
        If Facebook was using missiles in their airplanes instead of wifi, you might have a point.
- robszumski 13y ago
  The correct way to look at this is to think of the drones as very low, maneuverable satellites, not airplanes. They're up in unregulated airspace above airliners and above most weather. The lower you are, the lower the latency. Think of a laser-based optical network that connects the drones, with laser links going down to earth as well. When you think of the control required to ensure a quality of service and full coverage, the balloons seems like a terrible solution.
wmf 13y ago
Neither balloons or drones are going to be fast enough to watch Netflix.
- TTPrograms 13y ago
  IIRC freespace light based transmission has beaten a couple of Gbps.
- beamatronic 13y ago
  I wish there was a service that would just let me rent discs through the mail.

notdonspaulding 13y ago

Comcast can do what it does because Democrats portray the company as a problem with capitalism, while Republicans portray it as a problem with regulation. In truth, it's both. It's a problem where a company has co-opted well-meaning regulation to snuff out competition, which is a thing capitalist companies do. Meanwhile, citizens point the finger at each other instead of removing Comcast's ability to monopolize. Either the regulations that make competing as an ISP difficult need to be stripped out (my personal favorite), or the last mile needs to be public property. Either way, Comcast getting to be the only one sitting on that last-mile connection is what has given rise to its stranglehold on the internet. We need to support fixing this on a local/state level. Support smaller ISPs in their attempts to disrupt the incumbents, and support legislation that actually encourages innovation in the marketplace (even if that means striking policies from the law books).

maxsilver 13y ago
As someone who's trying to bootstrap a small, local, last-mile ISP right now, my only wish is that there were many more people that held your opinion on this matter, and were willing to back that opinion with their dollars.
- opendais 13y ago
  Where is this ISP? :) May I suggest a link in your profile?
  - maxsilver 13y ago
    Grand Rapids, Michigan. (And, if I'm ever successful and allowed to dream, Seattle would be my next target) Thanks for the suggestion, I updated my profile.
    - opendais 13y ago
      Ah, I'm thousands of miles away. Best of luck with your project!
    - deleted 13y ago

higherpurpose 13y ago

This could be the right time for Netflix to move to P2P, so then most of the bandwidth isn't consumed by them, but by their users. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-switched-p2p-video-streaming-180229987.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-switched-p2p-video-str... It's going to take a lot to fight the likes of Comcast in this one, which means Netflix will also need support from the community - so Netflix, please stop it with the boneheaded DRM push on the web. Guess what, if you are going to use P2P, you're going to need a plugin or native app anyway. So just stop trying to corrupt W3C already in a pointless move that can't and won't stop piracy anyway (which I'm sure you already know).

freehunter 13y ago
Is it Netflix fighting for DRM, or is it the content creators demanding DRM and Netflix simply wanting to move to HTML5 while still being able to continue licensing shows from the creators.
wmf 13y ago
P2P would shift the congestion from transit links to shared upstream last mile links which will probably make ISPs even more unhappy.
- kiallmacinnes 13y ago
  it would also shift the cost to consumers.. at least once you use up your data cap.
  - deegles 13y ago
    Unless you're using your ISPs video streaming service. :)
  - shakethemonkey 13y ago
    "Though Comcast doesn't disclose it specifically, analysts have estimated that Comcast's profit margins on broadband service are 80 percent or higher. In 2008, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst Craig Moffett estimated Comcast's data margins at 80 percent, and Credit Suisse reported in fall 2010 that Comcast's gross margins on high-speed data were 93 percent." https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/Comcast%20New%20Caps%20Factsheet_FINAL.pdf https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/Comc...

exelius 13y ago

This is a very public battle between two companies about who should shoulder the cost of delivering video to your home. Comcast's argument is that they have built a network at great expense for carrying content that others make a profit from, and they want to capture at least some of that value. Netflix's argument is that they have built a CDN to deliver that content to Comcast's doorstep, and that Comcast won't accept it. In my mind, Netflix charges money for their service and is not entitled to a free ride. The fact remains that running an ISP is not free, and you can't scale out a network faster than the cash flows (of which, yes, profits are a part) allow. But think about this: Netflix has a 36% gross profit margin, and Comcast's cable/Internet business has an 11% gross profit margin. Netflix's cost structure is lower in large part because Comcast does a lot of the expensive work for them (i.e. last-mile network maintenance and distribution.) Netflix drives significantly increased Internet traffic usage, and Comcast's investors should not have to accept lower profit margins so that Netflix's investors can enjoy larger margins because of investments that Comcast's investors have made. I would have a lot more sympathy for Netflix if their margins weren't so high. It just comes off as greedy when they have a 36% gross margin.

throwaway2048 13y ago
You are forgetting one central point, customers pay Comcast to receive netflix. It is their customers requesting this data, if Comcast truely has issues with the costs of this it is customers who should be paying more, not Netflix. The truth of the matter is this has absolutely zero to do with costs, and everything to do with extracting rent via market position.
- exelius 13y ago
  In this case, Comcast has two choices: raise prices on all their customers, or raise prices on Netflix's customers by charging Netflix for their increased usage. Prior to paying Comcast for transit, if Netflix decided to push 4k streams, that decision carried no repercussions for Netflix. Now they have to do a business case to see if the increased cost is worth it. I know it's not a popular opinion on HN, but I don't think it's unreasonable for Comcast to ask Netflix to shoulder some of the cost. It also has the added benefit of incentivizing Comcast to provide faster service. If they can charge Netflix more for pushing more data, then it directly leads to more profit if their users consume more data.

brianmcdonough 13y ago

The problem is sufficiently complex and boring to favor Comcast. What I would like to know is this: It is already a regional monopoly in high speed internet because no on can touch their speeds, why would anyone consider extending their monopoly nation-wide?

phrasz 13y ago

They should use classic Cable TV vs. Local Broadcasters tactics: Block all IPs from Comcast and force them to pay access to your content...which happens to be the exact amount they want for the Tolls. If we consumers have to pay to access to content why shouldn't ISPs?

SourPatch 13y ago
That might work if Netflix had compelling content. Maybe they do, I don't know. But it is not helping Netflix that Comcast is ranked near the top for ISP market share and also owns a ton of its own content (NBC Universal).
knodi 13y ago
That would kill Netflix before it hurts Comcast.

fizzbar 13y ago

This image http://www.willchatham.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/net.png http://www.willchatham.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/net.pn... has been making the rounds on reddit, surprised it hasn't appeared here yet. This is the most visceral/succinct explanation of the consequences of allowing the ISPs to have a "fast lane"...

wmf 13y ago
The clever thing about Comcast's intentional congestion extortion loophole is that the customer never sees it, so it doesn't look like that image.
anaphor 13y ago
That picture makes me almost physically ill
sschueller 13y ago
Swisscom in Switzerland was selling their infinity cell service like this: http://xavierstuder.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Swisscom_Infinity_comparais.jpg http://xavierstuder.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Swisscom_... However, even on the slowest plan you can still watch youtube. The only difference between the plans is the speed.

nostromo 13y ago

Netflix and Google and Amazon and Apple should join forces to let Comcast customers know when they're being throttled. "Your video is buffering because Comcast is slowing your connection down. Click here to contact Comcast customer support. Click here to find Netflix Certified providers in your area." Netflix and Google and Amazon and Apple all have great brands with high customer satisfaction. They should utilize all those eyeballs to funnel even more hate toward Comcast.

xpose2000 13y ago
I think the real question is... why haven't they already done this? Are they worried about pushback at the political level? Certainly their users would agree.
- chacham15 13y ago
  In a lot of cases it will do nothing but frustrate users. Why? Because where I live, the only really decent internet is Comcast. If I wanted to change providers, I would go from 16 MB/s internet down to approximately 1 MB/s (advertised speed...so like 1/10th of that in reality).
  - kevinchen 13y ago
    If users get frustrated enough, the public policy on net equality might change. ISPs get away with lobbying, the revolving door, and exclusivity deals with city governments because only techies care.
    - sbarre 13y ago
      Yeah but nobody will be willing to be the ones who suffer horrible or no service in the short term, certainly not long enough to enact the required changes to bring better competition to the areas that Comcast monopolizes.
    - baddox 13y ago
      That's assuming that "the people" have a measurable influence on politics. Plenty of data show that no such influence exists in certain aspects of policy.

dec0dedab0de 13y ago

This makes me so mad. I kind of wish all of the Big Internet providers like Level3, and Sprint would team up and block all traffic in and out of Comcast. Maybe redirect all http traffic to a page listing alternative ISPs.

johnpowell 13y ago
There aren't really alternate ISP's. It is Comcast or Centurylink here. And I live in a relatively big city of 200K people.

debian3 13y ago

You only need two or three major website who blackout their services to the Comcast user and redirect them to a page explaining that situation. Imagine if their subscriber can't access to Google and Facebook, and on that redirection page they target ads for alternative provider in your area. Would be nice to see how long Comcast would take to change their mind.

Cakez0r 13y ago
What about users who have no alternative to Comcast?
- knodi 13y ago
  You mean people like me. I hope for a better tomorrow.
kevinchen 13y ago
That is incredibly user-hostile. Google and Facebook would end up looking like the bad guys, and nothing would change.
- debian3 13y ago
  And doing the traffic shaping they did against Netflix is not?
- falsecelaona 13y ago
  No it is not. ISP throttling their paying customers because of their internal nonsense is user-hostile. Informing consumers that they're being undermined by their ISP is quite possibly the most pro-consumer act you could do. If it gets us one step closer to treating the bandwidth like electricity or water, it's a good thing.
  - kevinchen 13y ago
    Two possibilities from the user's point of view: "Facebook is a little slow because my ISP might be throttling, but I'm not sure, it could also be my computer" "I cannot access Facebook at all because Facebook blocked my ISP" Getting users pissed off at web services is not a good way to effect change. We need users on our side, so we can't have them think of us as crybabies.

pixelcort 13y ago

I think the real problem is unlimited internet connections. If ISP customers paid per-GB and/or per-Mbps, then the ISP shouldn't care if it's Netflix or Hulu or YouTube being consumed. The issue is that today, it's difficult to get a good feel for how much bandwidth is being used at any given moment. Unlike a water faucet, our devices don't really have a knob we can adjust the speed with.

kalleboo 13y ago
I think the real problem is poor infrastructure. None of this has been a problem here in Sweden, where the infrastructure is solid and easily supports end users with 100 Mbit home connections without me hearing any complaints.
- dsjoerg 13y ago
  The quality of infrastructure is the result of political and cultural factors, which are therefore the more underlying/real problem. Do you have a choice of multiple ISPs? If yes, then that's the critical difference vs the U.S., not the infrastructure. If no, then why has your monopoly ISP built such good infrastructure?
  - nolok 13y ago
    France's situation: national public telecom company (France Telecom, now Orange) built the network, private competitors appeared, Orange got privatized, competitors didn't have the network to be everywhere and allow proper competition so the law forced Orange to allow other ISPs to use Orange's network for a fee (so I could be a client of, say, Bouygue Telecom, but using Orange network to join Bouygue's). A huge and easy justification for that is that Orange's network had mostly been built using public funds since it was a public company at the time. Since then, several competitors have built their own network, but most still use Orange's sharing for remote place, small villages etc where it's not worth it for them to deploy their own. So your question is hard to answer. Why has the monopoly ISP built the infrastructure ? Because it was a public company, and if you wanted your house to be connected to the network they had to do it. Why have the others built their own ? Because it was much cheaper for them long term, especially since they also use it for their cellphone network. And from what I see, it seems to be the same in a lot of Europe, the national companies made the original network, and competitors piggy backed on it until they had their own. (I've oversimplified of course, but that's the gist of it)

6cxs2hd6 13y ago

When you think about it, Comcast NBC Universal is doing the same stuff with Aereo. Broadcasters get a government monopoly on a finite resource. Broadcasters don't provide a good signal to all customers. Some customers want to use Aereo (that's not the only reason, but a real reason) instead of paying for cable. But no, the broadcasters want to be paid for not-providing a signal to those customers. Instead of investing to improve their infrastructure, they want to be paid for not improving it. With a straight face. Of course it's especially ridiculous in the case where it's Comcast NBC, and they are also an ISP. If Aereo wins at SCOTUS, and grows big enough, Comcast NBC can get their pound of flesh as an ISP like they do with Netflix. It is all well and truly fscked.

lessnonymous 13y ago
> But no, the broadcasters want to be paid for not-providing a signal to those customers. Instead of investing to improve their infrastructure, they want to be paid for not improving it. This is the best one paragraph summary of the Aereo case I've heard. Certainly makes it absolutely plain why it needs to be allowed to continue.

jebblue 13y ago

This: >> "In this way, Comcast is double dipping by getting both its subscribers and Internet content providers to pay for access to each other." ..and this: >> "Put simply, there is one and only one way to reach Comcast’s subscribers at the last mile: Comcast." ...should be illegal. This really torques me. This smacks of how AT&T acted in the 80's when I was in my 20's and starting out on my own and how Microsoft acted in the 90's before they got busted, which is what lead me to Linux.

rayiner 13y ago
> ...should be illegal. And Facebook is the only way to reach Facebook's customers. Should that be illegal?
- pritambaral 13y ago
  Except Facebook's customers use Facebook to access Facebook's data. Comcast's customers use Comcast to access the internet's data, not Comcast's data. At least until the definition of Internet Service Provider is changed.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Not to the extent that Facebook is a platform for other services (Zynga, etc).

andrew93101 13y ago

Has there been discussion of passing this fee on to customers who access from Comcast in the form of a surcharge? If Netflix hiked prices for customers who were connecting from Comcast networks, it would encourage news of this business practice to spread.

clubhi 13y ago

I dropped Netflix about a month ago when I first heard they made this agreement with Comcast. They are part of the problem.

skkbits 13y ago

Is that "tata" from India ? How do they play role here ?

wmf 13y ago
Yes, Tata Group from India owns an Internet backbone (formerly VSNL & Teleglobe). Netflix traffic used to go through Tata to get to Comcast until Comcast deliberately congested it.
- cheald 13y ago
  Could you provide a link for that story? I hadn't heard of it til now.
  - wmf 13y ago
    http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg15911.html http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg15911.html http://www.internap.com/2010/12/02/peering-disputes-comcast-level-3-and-you/ http://www.internap.com/2010/12/02/peering-disputes-comcast-...

naviwins 13y ago

I see all these people saying Comcast was feuding with cogent... that is just not the case. For anyone in the hosting business we all know cogent is the cheapest option, and a pretty spotty service as a whole. What do we do when our customers complain and complain? Well, we seek out more reliable options and spend the money needed better serve our customers. So why does Netflix get to complain? They have already spent the money for the ridiculously one sided peering(Netflix sending tons of traffic and Comcast sending close to none). You would think Netflix would be happy to spend this money to better their service! Right? Or is it so detrimental to their cash flow that they would rather complain? They should have just told their customers "hey, we heard you were having some problems with our service, look what we did for you!" In the end this is just a smear campaign to distract Netflix customers from the price hike that is coming. It is obvious Netflix was going to raise its subscription prices eventually. So why not point the blame to a company who is already disliked. The majority of HN seems to be pretty smart people, it would be a shame if you fell for this rather underhanded ploy.

josephlord 13y ago
Who sends traffic is just easier to measure, the person receiving it may want it more and in the Netflix case they are requesting the traffic. In any case all Comcast's traffic is for their customers, when peering needs to be balanced to be free is when to parties are offering transit to other networks beyond themselves.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

nkcmr 13y ago

I really hope Netflix has what it takes to do what is necessary if it comes to that point. And what it is going to take is for Netflix to simply blackout Comcast. But actions like that can be easily spun out in the media (media of which has very close ties to Comcast) to make Netflix look bad. What would make it better is for all of the major players (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple) to collectively blackout Comcast, whilst educating the public on how they are being used and screwed at the same time.

zaroth 13y ago

Netflix presumably was paying Cogent a lot of money for all those 10Gbit uplinks. Now a few cross-connects and BGP tweaks later, a traceroute shows Netflix packets leaving a Netflix server and going more directly onto Comcast's network. I can only speculate that they turned on some dark fiber to build cross-connects between their cages and Comcast cages. Maybe they were already in the same building... How much did Netflix's Cogent bill go down? How much of the "work" that Cogent was doing is Netflix now doing themselves? How many hops of the traceroute are owned by Netflix, and how many hops by Comcast? When I rent a rack in One Wilshire in LA, CA, it comes with power, cooling, and a network link. When I pay let's say $1000/mo for that 1Gbps link, it's not just the link from my rack to their router that I'm paying for. And when I send 1Gbps of packets up through that link, it's not just CoreSite at One Wilshire carrying the cost of delivering those packets. At some point, yes, I do expect Comcast to get their "fair share" of that $1k/mo. If Comcast is PAID zero dollars for delivering that 1Gbps, then I want this free bandwidth gravy train to propagate all the way back to me. Comcast, please sign me up for 10 of those free 10Gbe links you're giving out, ok? Just tell me where to rent space where I can get those free 10Gbe cross connects to your network. But then, you can also flip the perspective and ask the question, why doesn't Comcast have to pay for all their bandwidth? Shouldn't they be paying $1,000/mo for their Gbe's? So why does bandwidth cost money, or more specifically when should bandwidth cost money? Price, as always, is just a means of efficiently allocating scarce resources. Price can only possibly be zero if there is no scarcity. Is it possible there's no scarcity of bandwidth on Comcast's network? Now that would be comical! I think the answer lies partially in another development. Ask Netflix to chart the cost in terms of Watts and Rack Units to deliver 1Gbps of video streams. My theory would be the cost in terms of space and electricity to generate 10Gbe of video streams has dropped orders of magnitude. This means bandwidth will be an increasing portion of your bill no matter what. It also puts more pressure on scarcity of bandwidth when the ease of which you can generate 10Gbps of useful traffic is down to just a few servers.

aidenn0 13y ago
> If comcast is PAID zero dollars... Comcast gets paid $50/month per subscriber for that bandwidth. It costs Comcast less money to peer with Netflix than to get it from cogent. Comcast wants Netflix to pay to solve a problem that Comcast's customers have. > Is it possible there's no scarcity of bandwidth on Comcast's network? Absolutely! In fact, that's part of what the chart shows; when Netflix peered with Comcast, the video quality (which is a proxy for bitrate to the consumer) went up significantly, which indicates that there was no bottleneck on the Comcast network. > Price ... is just a means of efficiently allocating scarce resources. Not in the case of a monopoly. Comcast has a monopoly on a large fraction of the broadband market. They also compete directly with Netflix, so they will leverage that monopoly to make it as expensive as possible for Netflix to continue to compete with them. This is Comcast creating an artificial scarcity of paths from Netflix to Comcast's customers. On another note, I have referred to Comcast subscribers as "customers" above; if agreements like the above continue, then Comcast subscribers are no longer customers, but rather the product that Comcast charges for efficient access to.

oelmekki 13y ago

Same problem exists in France with the "Free" (actual business name) ISP. It's a large ISP here, and it throttles access to youtube (and probably other content providers). It has been so for years. For some reason, there is no public awareness about that, people just say "my internet is not working well". It's an act of aggression against their customers, to me, since all ISPs are marketing their offers around connection speed. And it's violating net neutrality, too. I don't get how it does not become a major PR problem for ISPs doing that.

liotier 13y ago
Not just Iliad's Free - I know first hand that others admit internally that they are doing it too... But they choose to let Free be publicly vocal about it while they are just as violent behind closed doors.
- oelmekki 13y ago
  Yes, I've heard some vague reports from others ISP users too, but not anything I have measured of even just experienced first hand. That's the reason why I've switched to the new ISP services from ovh, though, as they made net neutrality their first marketing point (but for the same price, you don't have tv, if that matters).

josephlord 13y ago

If Netflix are right an Comcast are providing insufficient connectivity through to all of the major transit networks (rather than just Cogent) it feels to me as if Comcast are not providing the internet connection speeds that they are selling. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Netflix bought from all the many transit providers and spread the load across them, would all of Comcasts general service grind to a halt.