29 ms·

Netflix responds to Verizon

508 points by chrisacky 12y ago

ajainy 12y ago
Is it only me, who thinks, this letter might be FAKE. Though it's professionally written but it doesn't look like real one. For example: three DOTs right after word doorstep. I tend to use multiple dots in my personal emails but even in office, talking to clients, using multiple dots, is not professional. How we can confirm, this is REAL letter not just nice job done faking it.
- ajainy 12y ago
  oh grammer nazis... :). I thought, it's only reddit. Point is, it doesn't look "legal" enough language. Again, I just have doubt on it's legality.
- alphakappa 12y ago
  The three dots is the equivalent of an ellipsis. There's no reason for that to be unprofessional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis Now, random capitalization...
- mcherm 12y ago
  The lack of any response from Netflix disclaiming the letter as a fake seems to speak volumes. Also http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm
- nhangen 12y ago
  I'm not sure why you are getting downvoted, but I thought the same thing. Ellipses aside, it does not read like a letter written by an attorney.
cipherzero 12y ago
What's the Open Connect program they mention? how does it work?
- TheCapn 12y ago
  www.netflix.com/openconnect
- hackerguy0217 12y ago
  ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network. Major ISPs around the world have already connected to Open Connect, including Frontier, British Telecom, TDC, Clearwire, GVT, Telus, Bell Canada, Virgin, Cablevision, Google Fiber, Telmex, and more https://www.netflix.com/openconnect https://www.netflix.com/openconnect
  - Touche 12y ago
    Can you explain why ISPs should pay to run your servers in their network and not do the same for my personal homepage?
    - nathos 12y ago
      Because your homepage doesn't attract many TB of traffic?
      - Touche 12y ago
        So, bandwidth. What is the threshold with which ISPs should start giving out free hosting?
        nitrogen 12y ago
        When the space and electricity for the hosting is cheaper than the transit costs they would otherwise incur.
        criley2 12y ago
        It's not free hosting. It's not even hosting a webpage because it's not internet facing at all. Comcast customers can't visit the "free webpage" hosted on Verizon because it's not the internet we're discussing here. It's delivering a service to the local ISP network subscribers. The ISP is allowing Netflix to bring caches and servers to their interconnect so that the ISP can meet the demands of its users who are requesting that data. When should an ISP give out "free" things? When the quality of service for their customers requests depends on it. It's that simple: Customers request data, and ISPs have an obligation to deliver that data once it arrives at their local network. What you call "Free hosting" and "free upgrades", I call "upgrades for requested service paid for by my monthly bill". Because when I request data, and that data requires infrastructure to reach me adequately, then I am paying for that infrastructure by virtue of my monthly bill, and my decision to use part of my capped bandwidth on that service. Remember: residential internet is capped because "users must pay for their use, and infrastructure can't handle too much demand so we need to charge users to upgrade according to their usage pattern". So therefore, I'm paying for that Netflix interconnect, it's not free, I pay for it, because I pay for 300GB of data a month and all of the necessary infrastructure to deliver it!
taylorwc 12y ago
Ugh. Good for Netflix. Any consumer who doesn't have a strong opinion in favor of net neutrality should read this sort of thing. It's hard to think of a relationship I detest more than my relationship with my ISP/MSO.
- markbnj 12y ago
  Yes, indeed, good for them. The ISPs are counting on general ignorance and a PR battle to win them the right to charge incoming tolls on their networks. This has to be resisted. However, I read this morning that Netflix caved and agreed to remove the messaging early. I hope it's not true, and that they keep up the fight. Three Netflix accounts in our house.
ColinDabritz 12y ago
I hope Netflix makes this a standard feature for all ISPs. Bonus point for more transparency, e.g. network graphs comparing peak to off-peak. This sort of visibility into the real problems means the ISPs can't hide behind their lies.
- oostevo 12y ago
  It sounds like they might: "We are testing this type of messaging across the U.S. with multiple providers" [end of 1st paragraph] and "The current transparency test ... is scheduled to end June 16 and we are evaluating rolling it out more broadly. Regardless of this specific test, we will continue to work on ways to communicate network conditions to our customers." [last paragraph]
  - niels_olson 12y ago
    Internet current conditions. Love it. "And it looks like we're going to have a very blustery afternoon making for a tough easterly traffic situation and a high of 97 cuils"
    - nsxwolf 12y ago
      http://www.internetweathermap.com/map http://www.internetweathermap.com/map
    - dmdeller 12y ago
      For those who may not have gotten the reference, I've cuil'd it for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuil
- jobu 12y ago
  What is the messaging they're displaying to Verizon customers?
  - stonemetal 12y ago
    Verizon network is crowded right now. Adjusting video for smoother playback.
higherpurpose 12y ago
I hope Netflix doesn't give in, and calls Verizon's bluff. It's highly unlikely Verizon will sue Netflix, and even if it does just because they are so angry with Netflix over it, it will most likely come out in favor of Netflix, once the Court orders Verizon to show what's really happening behind the scenes and who's fault really is. In fact, from what I've noticed, Verizon has already lowered their tone about this, and is backing away from threatening Netflix with the lawsuit. So carry on! These ISP's promised good service to their paying customers, regardless of the conditions. It's their responsibility to live up to those expectations.
- mcintyre1994 12y ago
  Someone on Reddit pointed out that it would be a huge PR win for Netflix if Verizon did sue and they got the right documents in discovery. Depending on the scope maybe they could possibly get things as wide ranging as actual customer speeds as well as the peering points/capacity etc.
bryondowd 12y ago
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but in their bridge analogy, wouldn't the drivers be more analogous to the users than to Netflix? If anything, Netflix would be the city full of employment opportunities that drivers are commuting to and from across the bridge. So a more fitting comparison would be 'like blaming the city at the other end of the bridge for traffic jams..' Either way, brilliant response, and hopefully Verizon gets the hint.
- rmrfrmrf 12y ago
  I thought it was a reference to the Gov. Chris Christie bridge scandal, alluding to Verizon's corrupt nature.
  - bryondowd 12y ago
    Most definitely. But Verizon hasn't quite gone so far as blaming it's own customers for using Netflix, just blaming Netflix for attracting so much traffic.
    - rmrfrmrf 12y ago
      Maybe you're just trying to read too much into the analogy. I think Netflix is basically saying that the infrastructure is there (the bridge), but despite the fact that usage has increased (rush hour), Verizon is artificially capping speed (keeping lanes closed) to its users (the cars) by demanding that Netflix pay extra for Verizon to open more lanes on the bridge.
      - bryondowd 12y ago
        Yes, I certainly read too much into it. Just pointing out a flaw in the analogy. Verizon demanding that Netflix pay extra for users to access its content would be more like the Christie demanding the city of New York to pay for more lanes to be opened on the bridge. While simultaneously charging the drivers (the users) for access to it.
        12y ago
dctoedt 12y ago
Nice jab with (what seems to be) an allusion to the New Jersey bridge-closing scandal that engulfed Gov. Chris Christie: "... like blaming drivers on a bridge for traffic jams when you're the one who decided to leave three lanes closed during rush hour."
- awda 12y ago
  I'd only change it to "... blaming drivers on your toll bridge when you're the one ..." The drivers (customers) are paying for the bridge!
  - will_work4tears 12y ago
    Isn't that true with all bridges though? You don't have to pay for each use, but you sure paid for the construction and potentially the upkeep (or are likely to have paid).
    - aroch 12y ago
      Some bridges, such as the Seattle Lake Washington bridge, require a toll to cross even though they're on a toll-free highway.
    - awda 12y ago
      This is going very tangential, but no, not all bridges are directly paid for only by people driving on them. To make public bridges into an ISP analogy, imagine: municipal and state taxes as well as tax revenue from other states (via Federal highway dollars) pay for a municipal broadband network. You may or may not actually use the service, and you pay for it either way. You likely don't have any other choice of ISP. And it's not-for-profit, and the general public and lawmakers constantly clamor and legislate for better service at lower prices.
      - jdhzzz 12y ago
        Although not true, I always liked to think that taxes on my vehicle, fuel, and tolls paid for the infrastructure upon which I drive. I have no idea whether those are sufficient, but I'll bet in my state they state of high taxes and crappy infrastructure they are more than enough.
jusben1369 12y ago
Written to Verizon but written for everyone but Verizon. This is a PR battle started by Verizon but I think Netflix just went up 3 - 0.
- xster 12y ago
  ya, was just thinking how non-lawyer-cat-speak the letter is
- Russell91 12y ago
  Netflix lands more squarely on the customer's side on this topic. They have everything to gain from PR coverage and Verizon everything to lose. Seems like a bad move to me that Verizon decided to boost the awareness of this issue in the first place. Perhaps that wasn't the intention, but it was the effect.
gdulli 12y ago
Am I the only one who doesn't use streaming video and doesn't want my ISP rates to go up because a vast majority of the traffic they now have to deal with is video and their architecture needs to be built out in a way that it otherwise wouldn't?
- gnoway 12y ago
  Would you be less concerned if the traffic were bittorrent, or itunes, or $somethingElse?
- Touche 12y ago
  You should be a proponent of metered billing then. You'd pay for what you use.
- short_circut 12y ago
  You are probably one of the few. But I wouldn't buy too much into the argument that their rates have to go up. Internet speeds are higher and congestion are lower in many other countries where their rates are cheaper. I think there is one reason and one reason alone for this. That reason is localized monopolies. Take a quick gander into the deals the ISPs cut with local government. Prepare to be disturbed.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    I think there is one reason and one reason alone for this. If there's "one reason," it's because the US is spread out. Of the countries with faster consumer Internet speeds than the US, the biggest in area is France, which is less than a tenth the size of the lower 48. That said, local governments often suck. A few months ago Google just gave up on putting Google Fiber into San Francisco. Take a quick gander into the deals the ISPs cut with local government. Prepare to be disturbed. Could you show us the example you have in mind?
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      The limiting factor is not land area, but the marginal cost to serve an additional subscriber. It isn't the size of your graph, but the total cost of your spanning tree. The numbers involved are linear distances and number of nodes, not areas. In most areas of the US, pre-existing infrastructure, such as improved roads and utility easements, makes serving additional customers relatively low cost. But monopolies and commodity suppliers operate at different supply points. A monopoly will intentionally reduce output below the point where marginal cost equals marginal revenue, to achieve higher prices and economic profits. Leaving aside the concept of natural monopoly, that's the one reason. Most telecom markets are a local monopoly. Service sucks because the company providing it makes more money that way. Land area and population density are red herrings. You need to measure the size of existing networks, such as roads, electric power, potable water and sewers, and divide those by the number of people served. To use a car analogy, think about the Autobahn-style Interstate highway system. Before and after it was constructed, places remain the same absolute distance apart. But afterward, traveling between those places could take more or less time. Places that were previously adjacent might now require a detour via an overpass, whereas places previously distant might both have convenient on and off ramps. Travel times by car are thus determined by the roads network topology and not purely geographical distribution.
chernevik 12y ago
Kudos to Netflix, this is great strategy. But I wish the letter were a touch better written. They might attach a written-for-laymen description of the interconnection problem (so they can keep the response itself punchy). As I understand the problem, the congestion builds at the interconnection because Verizon's routers at that point at working at capacity. Verizon could solve the problem by adding routers at that point. I honestly don't understand what Verizon wants Netflix to do, unless it is to extend the Netflix data provision deeper into the Verizon network -- essentially adding routers at the point where Verizon is supposed to be maintaining routers. (I wonder if that is what this Open Connect program is about?) If that's right, I wish Netflix would provide some further detail explaining the problem. Otherwise they risk having readers -- and politicians -- go into glazed eyes and presume that this is just some inscrutable battle among corporate giants.
- hga 12y ago
  "I honestly don't understand what Verizon wants Netflix to do...." Die in a ditch. Seriously. Per the last big discussion on this, from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7858919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7858919 from a Verizon press release, "Verizon had a total of 5.8 million FiOS Internet and 5.0 million FiOS Video connections at the end of the [2nd] quarter [of 2013]". I would infer from that press release that they have 3.1 million plain DSL customers. Netflix et. al. are an existential threat to their FiOS Video business, especially since to my knowledge Verizon is the only holdout in putting caps on landline Internet connections (e.g. AT&T is in much less danger with 150-250 GiB/month, $10/for each additional 50 GiB). So I'm assuming there's nothing Netflix can do to satisfy Verizon besides giving up, going out of business, etc. Which, with cap and congestion ISP policies, is not beyond the realm of possibility; since the DVD renting business went sour, I've long thought for this reason Netflix was a high risk venture.
- lstamour 12y ago
  For your second paragraph, that is what Open Connect is about -- put netflix hardware inside the ISP's own network to reduce congestion at interconnects. That said, it's also an inscrutable battle among corporate giants, but one that people care about because in general, most people hate their ISP but like internet companies like Netflix and so put up with things. For up-to-date analysis on Internet issues, read up on dslreports.com as each stunt happens. It's not enough to hit mainstream news often, but if you follow it online you'll pick up on patterns. Here they cover this PDF (the last paragraph links to backstory): http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Netflix-Wont-Back-Down-on-Blaming-ISPs-for-Congestion-129278 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Netflix-Wont-Back-Down-on...
knodi 12y ago
Google needs to bring its ISP services to all US markets faster. Kill these shitty/pos ISPs. I'm really hoping Google is willing to throw enough capital at this problem and change some of the laws to open up the market to all new comers.
- callahad 12y ago
  I'm terrified of Google (or any single player) owning the entire stack from infrastructure to devices to services. Here's to hoping that Google Fiber (and municipal fiber) spur competition, rather than a new monopoly.
Osiris 12y ago
I believe the core problem here is that ISPs and infrastructure are owned by the same companies. Based on evidence from other countries, like Japan, these problems would largely go away if it was illegal to own both the infrastructure and provide service to customers. Is it possible that anti-trust laws could be used to force these large ISPs to break up into separate companies, one that owns and provides the network and the other that only leases the lines and provides service? Such a breakup would allow new, smaller, ISPs to leverage the infrastructure while provided superior service and potentially better pricing models. Of course there would still be the problem of competing infrastructure companies. Some of that could be alleviated by increasing competition through public/private fiber installation projects.
- ep103 12y ago
  yes, that would probably work, but they have such a huge influence on washington that at the moment we're having a hard time even keeping net neutrality alive.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=1xne7 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=1xne7
- danielweber 12y ago
  So the DSL infrastructure?
  - seynb 12y ago
    >So the DSL infrastructure? It's not so much about the last mile anymore. Since most customers want bundled voice/data/video, it's about linear video channels and that means content. The big players are always going to have more clout in negotiating the best rates for their bundled channels because they have the most subs (subscribers). Even if FCC mandated unbundling of the CableCos' HFC plant and the Telcos' FTTx plant, no one will be able to compete with the big boys on content. Also, alot of these plants were not designed for interoperability with other vendors' equipment and troubleshooting would be difficult to impossible. It's no longer as simple as a 2-wire local loop (twisted pair) that you can break out from a split bank to your own frame and DSLAM. The technologies share the same physical media -- think bus topology like a token ring. One faulty ONT in a B-PON or G-PON network can impact service for ~30 customers. What the FCC could do is mandate the reselling of data services like UNE-P with POTS, and the reseller (e.g. Netflix) could then bundle their own pure VoD product for video over the carrier's data platform So, deregulation (unbundling - platform) is one option. Otherwise, there would have to be a mandated and fair policy for exchange data between ISPs either at free or at tariffed rates across the board, just like voice trunks. Data is the new voice and the FCC needs to weigh in and start (de)/regulating or this is what the internet is going to look like 10 years from now. a.pomf.se/qtkuqv.jpg
dmethvin 12y ago
They are saying "The Verizon network is crowded right now" but in the letter they say that the problem is with "interconnection congestion". So yes the problem lies with Verizon and its hesitancy to open up peering points, but if I were a Netflix lawyer that wording would have me concerned since Verizon's network is not crowded. It's like having a crowd outside a bar waiting to get in.
- klodolph 12y ago
  It's like having a crowd inside a bar waiting to get out.
  - Terretta 12y ago
    It's like having a crowd inside your bar begging you for beer, then serving them in happy hour through only one tap. Unless the guys with the beer truck out back giving you free beer to serve your paying customers, in turn pay you to open up another tap.
    - sxtxixtxcxh 12y ago
      i'm sorry, this is all going over my head... can i get this in libraries of congress over football fields?
      - richardw 12y ago
        Its like a crowd inside the library trying to get out to the football field?
- brandoncordell 12y ago
  Isn't that essentially saying there's a crowd outside the bar waiting to get in because the bar itself is already packed?
  - dmethvin 12y ago
    No, the bar isn't packed at all. The bouncer is being a dick and only letting in the people who bribe him.
uptownhr 12y ago
I'm thinking from a Consumer's stand point right now. No matter how I see it, it looks like ISPs are at fault in this matter but I've been questioning what the outcome will be for the Consumers in the end. If Netflix doesn't pay, wouldn't Verizon and other service providers transfer the cost to Consumers? Or will this also be not allowed for ISP to do? If ISPs want to make more money and charge more, why would they not transfer the cost to Consumers if they cannot charge Netflix and the likes.
- delinka 12y ago
  You make it sound like we, the customers, aren't already paying; like upgrades to hardware would never be reflected in the prices we pay. It really doesn't matter which company actually writes the check, their costs are reflected in my bill. As well as their profits, executive bonuses... In this case, what matters is that one company is already taking my money for a particular service, half-assing the service itself, taking those profits, and trying to blame someone else.
  - uptownhr 12y ago
    That's actually my point. Since upgrades, etc... all are reflected in our bill. When ISPs cannot charge Netflix and the likes in the long run, wouldn't it be reflected on the Consumer's bill? Or will the ISP business become less profitable than expected (from the eyes of ISPs)? I see that ISPs (companies) generally want to make more money. Attempting to charge Netflix is an attempt at that. If they are not able to charge Netflix this extra amount, wouldn't it be logical for them to charge consumers more? As it appears in Netflix's statement, their network is congested. If ISPs want to keep their profit ratio and offer better services to their consumers. Somebody has to pay more. I doubt they would settle for anything less. Again this is just me. I would be interested to hear if there would be anything preventing ISPs from charging their customers more...
    - aredington 12y ago
      Verizon has so much bandwidth to get in and out of their network for broader internet bound and broader internet originating traffic. Netflix has to come in the off ramp that all the torrents, hacker news, and etc. traffic has to come in. Netflix has offered to build a new offramp for Netflix traffic that goes directly into Verizon's network. Netflix is willing to shoulder ALL of the burden of this infrastructure cost, and to maintain it. Verizon has refused the offer, and instead wants to charge Netflix a toll so that their traffic gets to use an EZ-Pass lane, instead of going through the normal slow toll booths that everyone else's traffic goes through.
nhangen 12y ago
Is that real? It doesn't read like it was written by an attorney, and there was even a grammar mistake in the first paragraph.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Real attorneys make grammar mistakes all the time.
  - nhangen 12y ago
    You're telling me that no one proofreads documents like these?
- ignostic 12y ago
  I had my doubts, too: it seemed like a very strange way to "leak" the response, and the wording and phrasing weren't perfect. ARS seems to have called a spokesperson who didn't deny it, though: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/netflix-refuses-to-comply-with-verizons-cease-and-desist-demands/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/netflix-refuses-t... Or at least ARS has a spokesperson saying the "letter speaks for itself," which suggests authenticity.
gnu8 12y ago
How about a link to the document instead of some fly-by-night web host with a cheesy flash PDF viewer?
- ethnt 12y ago
  There's a large orange "Download" button directly to the right of the document.
  - gergles 12y ago
    Which forces you to login and then pay. Just link to the damn PDFs. Scribd is a parasite.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Scribd is a Ycombinator company. All pdf links are converted to Scribd links.
      - mzs 12y ago
        Usually I can click the left part of the URL for the original PDF, in this case it is just a scribd URL and when I go to it the contents is blank in this browser sadly and I can't read it. My hunch is that if a PDF URL is submitted to HN it automatically adds a scribd link to the right if it can leaving the original to the left, which is snazzy and nice for those that use scribd, but that in this case it was the scribd URL itself that was submitted.
      - aroch 12y ago
        Not quite, all PDF links posted have a [Scribd] tag appended to their titles that links to a scribd mirror. However in this case the original PDF is hosted on scribd, the OP got the link from an Arstechnica article.
    - Perseids 12y ago
      I have just successfully created an account with a bogus email address and was then able to download the PDF without payment. Still Scribd is a PITA, especially since Firefox and Chrome got integrated PDF readers.
asc123 12y ago
Netflix should just stop serving to Verizon and Comcast. the outlash would force the FCC and companies to recognize.
- Moral_ 12y ago
  That would be a very bad idea for Netflix. They would be breaching contract on thousands and thousands of customers and open them self to probably a very large class action lawsuit. Although I could be wrong IANAL.
  - hga 12y ago
    While I agree this is a bad idea---the whole incident shows they have a direct link to the hearts and minds of their subscribers using these ISPs and are not afraid of using it (the biggest development in the net neutrality fight since AT&T's Ed Whitacre opened his foolish mouth and started it 8 years ago)----they could punt subscribers on these ISPs by simply not renewing subscriptions as they finish. I'm sure they're not representing they'll be providing their service forever, and e.g. issues with content providers means they can't even promise they'll be supplying access to any particular stuff beyond what they outright buy or produce themselves.
- macspoofing 12y ago
  Maybe it will, or maybe it won't. And if it will, it may come after Netflix' US business is irrevocably damaged. It's not a sane choice for Netflix to make.
dokem 12y ago
I'm all for what Netflix is doing, but this read like a cheesy publicity stunt. The whole thing seems like it was written to be read by the public, not Verizon's lawyers. I mean, it contained a simile/metaphor.
- joezydeco 12y ago
  Since the public isn't really up to speed on the net neutrality issue, I can't think of a better way to educate them. This war is going to be fought on multiple fronts, and public relations is a very large one.
- yazaddaruvala 12y ago
  Ideally everything legal entities write, that can be written for the public, should be written for the public. And when I say "for the public" I mean in terms the public can understand. So yes, including simile/metaphor.
gettingreal 12y ago
Is this just a USA problem? Why for example has SKY or TalkTalk in the UK not tried this? What is stopping them?
- jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
  Sky and TalkTalk both rather like having customers, and would be unhappy if any significant number of customers perceived Sky or Talktalk's service as being poor, and chose to move to a different ISP because of it. UK ISPs do/have used streaming video and buffering (or the absence of it) as a battleground of quality - you see companies making claims of fastest or "most reliable" broadband, and it gets them customers as a result. Mucking up people's ability to access Netflix would bring no benefit - people would just choose a different ISP. At least in the UK, where people have that choice. This situation may not apply in other countries.
panabee 12y ago
hopefully netflix continues this push toward broadband transparency. as justice louis brandeis said, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." it seems unreasonable for verizon and broadband providers to advertise, and charge consumers for, high-quality networks -- then try to pry money from data suppliers like netflix when usage rises. that said, is there a fair counterargument that justifies verizon's desire to charge both consumers for high-speed access and netflix for increased network usage?
- rqebmm 12y ago
  > is there a fair counterargument that justifies verizon's desire to charge both consumers for high-speed access and netflix for increased network usage? The closest approximation is "as a publicly traded company they owe it to their shareholders to make as much money as possible"
autokad 12y ago
doesnt this reek of hoax to anyone? Not just the 'response' letter, but the initial twitter 'screen shot' as well. Why in the world would an executive scan a letter like that opening them up to litigation? even if they were 'right', they would probably get fired for it.
- lstamour 12y ago
  I don't think they scanned it. The scribd account, at least, shows other similar documents uploaded by the same user, none of which were original up to now. I've no reason to doubt its authenticity. I bet it just spread outside the company by people who are interested in net neutrality.
thatthatis 12y ago
They might as well have addressed that letter to hacker news with a cc to verizon. Well executed PR move.
oldmanjay 12y ago
What I find most interesting about these topics is how many people come out to contribute to them. Nothing gets people riled up like vaguely threatening the free flow of entertainment. I wish I know how to direct this energy into something a little less disappointing.
crazy1van 12y ago
It is so aggravating to have Verizon pitch an upgrade to FiOS Quantum(!) every time I turn my DVR on. If my 25mbps connection can't stream a 5mbps video why would I pay extra for 50mbps? No thank you, Verizon.
tieTYT 12y ago
I don't know how Netflix figures out that it's Verizon that's slow, but lets say it's with some software that anyone could use. Wouldn't it benefit the entire Internet to open source that software so that anyone could use it? Or, barring that, provide an API that anyone can query. This way, any company can use the software and report the same thing to their customers. Lower the barrier to entry for Amazon/Google/Hulu/your startup to join the fight and inform the people.
- warfangle 12y ago
  mtr probably over time, comparing transit during and not during peak viewing times for a given isp
mantrax5 12y ago
It's becoming a habit that every week either telco responds to Netflix, or Netflix responds to telco. I'm slightly sick of these silly public letters. Why the hell either Netflix or said telcos feel like they need to bother the public with their internal problems, instead of solving them privately like adults? This is not about net neutrality. It's about who foots the bill for upgrading the network to handle the capacity that Netflix users need. Meter the damn traffic and let Netflix (and other heavy) users pay the telco and be done with it. God damn.
- ossreality 12y ago
  MAn you like to run you mouth. A a Netflix/Comcast customer, I'm already paying for that bandwidth. Netflix shouldn't pay more because Comcast is too lazy to invest in their infrastructure.

508 points by chrisacky 12y ago

Is it only me, who thinks, this letter might be FAKE. Though it's professionally written but it doesn't look like real one. For example: three DOTs right after word doorstep. I tend to use multiple dots in my personal emails but even in office, talking to clients, using multiple dots, is not professional. How we can confirm, this is REAL letter not just nice job done faking it.

ajainy 12y ago
oh grammer nazis... :). I thought, it's only reddit. Point is, it doesn't look "legal" enough language. Again, I just have doubt on it's legality.
alphakappa 12y ago
The three dots is the equivalent of an ellipsis. There's no reason for that to be unprofessional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis Now, random capitalization...
mcherm 12y ago
The lack of any response from Netflix disclaiming the letter as a fake seems to speak volumes. Also http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/ellipsis.htm
nhangen 12y ago
I'm not sure why you are getting downvoted, but I thought the same thing. Ellipses aside, it does not read like a letter written by an attorney.

cipherzero 12y ago

What's the Open Connect program they mention? how does it work?

TheCapn 12y ago
www.netflix.com/openconnect
hackerguy0217 12y ago
ISPs can directly connect their networks to Open Connect for free. ISPs can do this either by free peering with us at common Internet exchanges, or can save even more transit costs by putting our free storage appliances in or near their network. Major ISPs around the world have already connected to Open Connect, including Frontier, British Telecom, TDC, Clearwire, GVT, Telus, Bell Canada, Virgin, Cablevision, Google Fiber, Telmex, and more https://www.netflix.com/openconnect https://www.netflix.com/openconnect
- Touche 12y ago
  Can you explain why ISPs should pay to run your servers in their network and not do the same for my personal homepage?
  - nathos 12y ago
    Because your homepage doesn't attract many TB of traffic?
    - Touche 12y ago
      So, bandwidth. What is the threshold with which ISPs should start giving out free hosting?
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        When the space and electricity for the hosting is cheaper than the transit costs they would otherwise incur.
      - criley2 12y ago
        It's not free hosting. It's not even hosting a webpage because it's not internet facing at all. Comcast customers can't visit the "free webpage" hosted on Verizon because it's not the internet we're discussing here. It's delivering a service to the local ISP network subscribers. The ISP is allowing Netflix to bring caches and servers to their interconnect so that the ISP can meet the demands of its users who are requesting that data. When should an ISP give out "free" things? When the quality of service for their customers requests depends on it. It's that simple: Customers request data, and ISPs have an obligation to deliver that data once it arrives at their local network. What you call "Free hosting" and "free upgrades", I call "upgrades for requested service paid for by my monthly bill". Because when I request data, and that data requires infrastructure to reach me adequately, then I am paying for that infrastructure by virtue of my monthly bill, and my decision to use part of my capped bandwidth on that service. Remember: residential internet is capped because "users must pay for their use, and infrastructure can't handle too much demand so we need to charge users to upgrade according to their usage pattern". So therefore, I'm paying for that Netflix interconnect, it's not free, I pay for it, because I pay for 300GB of data a month and all of the necessary infrastructure to deliver it!

taylorwc 12y ago

Ugh. Good for Netflix. Any consumer who doesn't have a strong opinion in favor of net neutrality should read this sort of thing. It's hard to think of a relationship I detest more than my relationship with my ISP/MSO.

markbnj 12y ago
Yes, indeed, good for them. The ISPs are counting on general ignorance and a PR battle to win them the right to charge incoming tolls on their networks. This has to be resisted. However, I read this morning that Netflix caved and agreed to remove the messaging early. I hope it's not true, and that they keep up the fight. Three Netflix accounts in our house.

ColinDabritz 12y ago

I hope Netflix makes this a standard feature for all ISPs. Bonus point for more transparency, e.g. network graphs comparing peak to off-peak. This sort of visibility into the real problems means the ISPs can't hide behind their lies.

oostevo 12y ago
It sounds like they might: "We are testing this type of messaging across the U.S. with multiple providers" [end of 1st paragraph] and "The current transparency test ... is scheduled to end June 16 and we are evaluating rolling it out more broadly. Regardless of this specific test, we will continue to work on ways to communicate network conditions to our customers." [last paragraph]
- niels_olson 12y ago
  Internet current conditions. Love it. "And it looks like we're going to have a very blustery afternoon making for a tough easterly traffic situation and a high of 97 cuils"
  - nsxwolf 12y ago
    http://www.internetweathermap.com/map http://www.internetweathermap.com/map
  - dmdeller 12y ago
    For those who may not have gotten the reference, I've cuil'd it for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuil
jobu 12y ago
What is the messaging they're displaying to Verizon customers?
- stonemetal 12y ago
  Verizon network is crowded right now. Adjusting video for smoother playback.

higherpurpose 12y ago

I hope Netflix doesn't give in, and calls Verizon's bluff. It's highly unlikely Verizon will sue Netflix, and even if it does just because they are so angry with Netflix over it, it will most likely come out in favor of Netflix, once the Court orders Verizon to show what's really happening behind the scenes and who's fault really is. In fact, from what I've noticed, Verizon has already lowered their tone about this, and is backing away from threatening Netflix with the lawsuit. So carry on! These ISP's promised good service to their paying customers, regardless of the conditions. It's their responsibility to live up to those expectations.

mcintyre1994 12y ago
Someone on Reddit pointed out that it would be a huge PR win for Netflix if Verizon did sue and they got the right documents in discovery. Depending on the scope maybe they could possibly get things as wide ranging as actual customer speeds as well as the peering points/capacity etc.

bryondowd 12y ago

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but in their bridge analogy, wouldn't the drivers be more analogous to the users than to Netflix? If anything, Netflix would be the city full of employment opportunities that drivers are commuting to and from across the bridge. So a more fitting comparison would be 'like blaming the city at the other end of the bridge for traffic jams..' Either way, brilliant response, and hopefully Verizon gets the hint.

rmrfrmrf 12y ago
I thought it was a reference to the Gov. Chris Christie bridge scandal, alluding to Verizon's corrupt nature.
- bryondowd 12y ago
  Most definitely. But Verizon hasn't quite gone so far as blaming it's own customers for using Netflix, just blaming Netflix for attracting so much traffic.
  - rmrfrmrf 12y ago
    Maybe you're just trying to read too much into the analogy. I think Netflix is basically saying that the infrastructure is there (the bridge), but despite the fact that usage has increased (rush hour), Verizon is artificially capping speed (keeping lanes closed) to its users (the cars) by demanding that Netflix pay extra for Verizon to open more lanes on the bridge.
    - bryondowd 12y ago
      Yes, I certainly read too much into it. Just pointing out a flaw in the analogy. Verizon demanding that Netflix pay extra for users to access its content would be more like the Christie demanding the city of New York to pay for more lanes to be opened on the bridge. While simultaneously charging the drivers (the users) for access to it.
      - 12y ago

dctoedt 12y ago

Nice jab with (what seems to be) an allusion to the New Jersey bridge-closing scandal that engulfed Gov. Chris Christie: "... like blaming drivers on a bridge for traffic jams when you're the one who decided to leave three lanes closed during rush hour."

awda 12y ago
I'd only change it to "... blaming drivers on your toll bridge when you're the one ..." The drivers (customers) are paying for the bridge!
- will_work4tears 12y ago
  Isn't that true with all bridges though? You don't have to pay for each use, but you sure paid for the construction and potentially the upkeep (or are likely to have paid).
  - aroch 12y ago
    Some bridges, such as the Seattle Lake Washington bridge, require a toll to cross even though they're on a toll-free highway.
  - awda 12y ago
    This is going very tangential, but no, not all bridges are directly paid for only by people driving on them. To make public bridges into an ISP analogy, imagine: municipal and state taxes as well as tax revenue from other states (via Federal highway dollars) pay for a municipal broadband network. You may or may not actually use the service, and you pay for it either way. You likely don't have any other choice of ISP. And it's not-for-profit, and the general public and lawmakers constantly clamor and legislate for better service at lower prices.
    - jdhzzz 12y ago
      Although not true, I always liked to think that taxes on my vehicle, fuel, and tolls paid for the infrastructure upon which I drive. I have no idea whether those are sufficient, but I'll bet in my state they state of high taxes and crappy infrastructure they are more than enough.

jusben1369 12y ago

Written to Verizon but written for everyone but Verizon. This is a PR battle started by Verizon but I think Netflix just went up 3 - 0.

xster 12y ago
ya, was just thinking how non-lawyer-cat-speak the letter is
Russell91 12y ago
Netflix lands more squarely on the customer's side on this topic. They have everything to gain from PR coverage and Verizon everything to lose. Seems like a bad move to me that Verizon decided to boost the awareness of this issue in the first place. Perhaps that wasn't the intention, but it was the effect.

gdulli 12y ago

Am I the only one who doesn't use streaming video and doesn't want my ISP rates to go up because a vast majority of the traffic they now have to deal with is video and their architecture needs to be built out in a way that it otherwise wouldn't?

gnoway 12y ago
Would you be less concerned if the traffic were bittorrent, or itunes, or $somethingElse?
Touche 12y ago
You should be a proponent of metered billing then. You'd pay for what you use.
short_circut 12y ago
You are probably one of the few. But I wouldn't buy too much into the argument that their rates have to go up. Internet speeds are higher and congestion are lower in many other countries where their rates are cheaper. I think there is one reason and one reason alone for this. That reason is localized monopolies. Take a quick gander into the deals the ISPs cut with local government. Prepare to be disturbed.
- danielweber 12y ago
  I think there is one reason and one reason alone for this. If there's "one reason," it's because the US is spread out. Of the countries with faster consumer Internet speeds than the US, the biggest in area is France, which is less than a tenth the size of the lower 48. That said, local governments often suck. A few months ago Google just gave up on putting Google Fiber into San Francisco. Take a quick gander into the deals the ISPs cut with local government. Prepare to be disturbed. Could you show us the example you have in mind?
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    The limiting factor is not land area, but the marginal cost to serve an additional subscriber. It isn't the size of your graph, but the total cost of your spanning tree. The numbers involved are linear distances and number of nodes, not areas. In most areas of the US, pre-existing infrastructure, such as improved roads and utility easements, makes serving additional customers relatively low cost. But monopolies and commodity suppliers operate at different supply points. A monopoly will intentionally reduce output below the point where marginal cost equals marginal revenue, to achieve higher prices and economic profits. Leaving aside the concept of natural monopoly, that's the one reason. Most telecom markets are a local monopoly. Service sucks because the company providing it makes more money that way. Land area and population density are red herrings. You need to measure the size of existing networks, such as roads, electric power, potable water and sewers, and divide those by the number of people served. To use a car analogy, think about the Autobahn-style Interstate highway system. Before and after it was constructed, places remain the same absolute distance apart. But afterward, traveling between those places could take more or less time. Places that were previously adjacent might now require a detour via an overpass, whereas places previously distant might both have convenient on and off ramps. Travel times by car are thus determined by the roads network topology and not purely geographical distribution.

chernevik 12y ago

Kudos to Netflix, this is great strategy. But I wish the letter were a touch better written. They might attach a written-for-laymen description of the interconnection problem (so they can keep the response itself punchy). As I understand the problem, the congestion builds at the interconnection because Verizon's routers at that point at working at capacity. Verizon could solve the problem by adding routers at that point. I honestly don't understand what Verizon wants Netflix to do, unless it is to extend the Netflix data provision deeper into the Verizon network -- essentially adding routers at the point where Verizon is supposed to be maintaining routers. (I wonder if that is what this Open Connect program is about?) If that's right, I wish Netflix would provide some further detail explaining the problem. Otherwise they risk having readers -- and politicians -- go into glazed eyes and presume that this is just some inscrutable battle among corporate giants.

hga 12y ago
"I honestly don't understand what Verizon wants Netflix to do...." Die in a ditch. Seriously. Per the last big discussion on this, from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7858919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7858919 from a Verizon press release, "Verizon had a total of 5.8 million FiOS Internet and 5.0 million FiOS Video connections at the end of the [2nd] quarter [of 2013]". I would infer from that press release that they have 3.1 million plain DSL customers. Netflix et. al. are an existential threat to their FiOS Video business, especially since to my knowledge Verizon is the only holdout in putting caps on landline Internet connections (e.g. AT&T is in much less danger with 150-250 GiB/month, $10/for each additional 50 GiB). So I'm assuming there's nothing Netflix can do to satisfy Verizon besides giving up, going out of business, etc. Which, with cap and congestion ISP policies, is not beyond the realm of possibility; since the DVD renting business went sour, I've long thought for this reason Netflix was a high risk venture.
lstamour 12y ago
For your second paragraph, that is what Open Connect is about -- put netflix hardware inside the ISP's own network to reduce congestion at interconnects. That said, it's also an inscrutable battle among corporate giants, but one that people care about because in general, most people hate their ISP but like internet companies like Netflix and so put up with things. For up-to-date analysis on Internet issues, read up on dslreports.com as each stunt happens. It's not enough to hit mainstream news often, but if you follow it online you'll pick up on patterns. Here they cover this PDF (the last paragraph links to backstory): http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Netflix-Wont-Back-Down-on-Blaming-ISPs-for-Congestion-129278 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Netflix-Wont-Back-Down-on...

knodi 12y ago

Google needs to bring its ISP services to all US markets faster. Kill these shitty/pos ISPs. I'm really hoping Google is willing to throw enough capital at this problem and change some of the laws to open up the market to all new comers.

callahad 12y ago
I'm terrified of Google (or any single player) owning the entire stack from infrastructure to devices to services. Here's to hoping that Google Fiber (and municipal fiber) spur competition, rather than a new monopoly.

Osiris 12y ago

I believe the core problem here is that ISPs and infrastructure are owned by the same companies. Based on evidence from other countries, like Japan, these problems would largely go away if it was illegal to own both the infrastructure and provide service to customers. Is it possible that anti-trust laws could be used to force these large ISPs to break up into separate companies, one that owns and provides the network and the other that only leases the lines and provides service? Such a breakup would allow new, smaller, ISPs to leverage the infrastructure while provided superior service and potentially better pricing models. Of course there would still be the problem of competing infrastructure companies. Some of that could be alleviated by increasing competition through public/private fiber installation projects.

ep103 12y ago
yes, that would probably work, but they have such a huge influence on washington that at the moment we're having a hard time even keeping net neutrality alive.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=1xne7 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=1xne7
danielweber 12y ago
So the DSL infrastructure?
- seynb 12y ago
  >So the DSL infrastructure? It's not so much about the last mile anymore. Since most customers want bundled voice/data/video, it's about linear video channels and that means content. The big players are always going to have more clout in negotiating the best rates for their bundled channels because they have the most subs (subscribers). Even if FCC mandated unbundling of the CableCos' HFC plant and the Telcos' FTTx plant, no one will be able to compete with the big boys on content. Also, alot of these plants were not designed for interoperability with other vendors' equipment and troubleshooting would be difficult to impossible. It's no longer as simple as a 2-wire local loop (twisted pair) that you can break out from a split bank to your own frame and DSLAM. The technologies share the same physical media -- think bus topology like a token ring. One faulty ONT in a B-PON or G-PON network can impact service for ~30 customers. What the FCC could do is mandate the reselling of data services like UNE-P with POTS, and the reseller (e.g. Netflix) could then bundle their own pure VoD product for video over the carrier's data platform So, deregulation (unbundling - platform) is one option. Otherwise, there would have to be a mandated and fair policy for exchange data between ISPs either at free or at tariffed rates across the board, just like voice trunks. Data is the new voice and the FCC needs to weigh in and start (de)/regulating or this is what the internet is going to look like 10 years from now. a.pomf.se/qtkuqv.jpg

dmethvin 12y ago

They are saying "The Verizon network is crowded right now" but in the letter they say that the problem is with "interconnection congestion". So yes the problem lies with Verizon and its hesitancy to open up peering points, but if I were a Netflix lawyer that wording would have me concerned since Verizon's network is not crowded. It's like having a crowd outside a bar waiting to get in.

klodolph 12y ago
It's like having a crowd inside a bar waiting to get out.
- Terretta 12y ago
  It's like having a crowd inside your bar begging you for beer, then serving them in happy hour through only one tap. Unless the guys with the beer truck out back giving you free beer to serve your paying customers, in turn pay you to open up another tap.
  - sxtxixtxcxh 12y ago
    i'm sorry, this is all going over my head... can i get this in libraries of congress over football fields?
    - richardw 12y ago
      Its like a crowd inside the library trying to get out to the football field?
brandoncordell 12y ago
Isn't that essentially saying there's a crowd outside the bar waiting to get in because the bar itself is already packed?
- dmethvin 12y ago
  No, the bar isn't packed at all. The bouncer is being a dick and only letting in the people who bribe him.

uptownhr 12y ago

I'm thinking from a Consumer's stand point right now. No matter how I see it, it looks like ISPs are at fault in this matter but I've been questioning what the outcome will be for the Consumers in the end. If Netflix doesn't pay, wouldn't Verizon and other service providers transfer the cost to Consumers? Or will this also be not allowed for ISP to do? If ISPs want to make more money and charge more, why would they not transfer the cost to Consumers if they cannot charge Netflix and the likes.

delinka 12y ago
You make it sound like we, the customers, aren't already paying; like upgrades to hardware would never be reflected in the prices we pay. It really doesn't matter which company actually writes the check, their costs are reflected in my bill. As well as their profits, executive bonuses... In this case, what matters is that one company is already taking my money for a particular service, half-assing the service itself, taking those profits, and trying to blame someone else.
- uptownhr 12y ago
  That's actually my point. Since upgrades, etc... all are reflected in our bill. When ISPs cannot charge Netflix and the likes in the long run, wouldn't it be reflected on the Consumer's bill? Or will the ISP business become less profitable than expected (from the eyes of ISPs)? I see that ISPs (companies) generally want to make more money. Attempting to charge Netflix is an attempt at that. If they are not able to charge Netflix this extra amount, wouldn't it be logical for them to charge consumers more? As it appears in Netflix's statement, their network is congested. If ISPs want to keep their profit ratio and offer better services to their consumers. Somebody has to pay more. I doubt they would settle for anything less. Again this is just me. I would be interested to hear if there would be anything preventing ISPs from charging their customers more...
  - aredington 12y ago
    Verizon has so much bandwidth to get in and out of their network for broader internet bound and broader internet originating traffic. Netflix has to come in the off ramp that all the torrents, hacker news, and etc. traffic has to come in. Netflix has offered to build a new offramp for Netflix traffic that goes directly into Verizon's network. Netflix is willing to shoulder ALL of the burden of this infrastructure cost, and to maintain it. Verizon has refused the offer, and instead wants to charge Netflix a toll so that their traffic gets to use an EZ-Pass lane, instead of going through the normal slow toll booths that everyone else's traffic goes through.

nhangen 12y ago

Is that real? It doesn't read like it was written by an attorney, and there was even a grammar mistake in the first paragraph.

danielweber 12y ago
Real attorneys make grammar mistakes all the time.
- nhangen 12y ago
  You're telling me that no one proofreads documents like these?
ignostic 12y ago
I had my doubts, too: it seemed like a very strange way to "leak" the response, and the wording and phrasing weren't perfect. ARS seems to have called a spokesperson who didn't deny it, though: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/netflix-refuses-to-comply-with-verizons-cease-and-desist-demands/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/netflix-refuses-t... Or at least ARS has a spokesperson saying the "letter speaks for itself," which suggests authenticity.

gnu8 12y ago

How about a link to the document instead of some fly-by-night web host with a cheesy flash PDF viewer?

ethnt 12y ago
There's a large orange "Download" button directly to the right of the document.
- gergles 12y ago
  Which forces you to login and then pay. Just link to the damn PDFs. Scribd is a parasite.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Scribd is a Ycombinator company. All pdf links are converted to Scribd links.
    - mzs 12y ago
      Usually I can click the left part of the URL for the original PDF, in this case it is just a scribd URL and when I go to it the contents is blank in this browser sadly and I can't read it. My hunch is that if a PDF URL is submitted to HN it automatically adds a scribd link to the right if it can leaving the original to the left, which is snazzy and nice for those that use scribd, but that in this case it was the scribd URL itself that was submitted.
    - aroch 12y ago
      Not quite, all PDF links posted have a [Scribd] tag appended to their titles that links to a scribd mirror. However in this case the original PDF is hosted on scribd, the OP got the link from an Arstechnica article.
  - Perseids 12y ago
    I have just successfully created an account with a bogus email address and was then able to download the PDF without payment. Still Scribd is a PITA, especially since Firefox and Chrome got integrated PDF readers.

asc123 12y ago

Netflix should just stop serving to Verizon and Comcast. the outlash would force the FCC and companies to recognize.

Moral_ 12y ago
That would be a very bad idea for Netflix. They would be breaching contract on thousands and thousands of customers and open them self to probably a very large class action lawsuit. Although I could be wrong IANAL.
- hga 12y ago
  While I agree this is a bad idea---the whole incident shows they have a direct link to the hearts and minds of their subscribers using these ISPs and are not afraid of using it (the biggest development in the net neutrality fight since AT&T's Ed Whitacre opened his foolish mouth and started it 8 years ago)----they could punt subscribers on these ISPs by simply not renewing subscriptions as they finish. I'm sure they're not representing they'll be providing their service forever, and e.g. issues with content providers means they can't even promise they'll be supplying access to any particular stuff beyond what they outright buy or produce themselves.
macspoofing 12y ago
Maybe it will, or maybe it won't. And if it will, it may come after Netflix' US business is irrevocably damaged. It's not a sane choice for Netflix to make.

dokem 12y ago

I'm all for what Netflix is doing, but this read like a cheesy publicity stunt. The whole thing seems like it was written to be read by the public, not Verizon's lawyers. I mean, it contained a simile/metaphor.

joezydeco 12y ago
Since the public isn't really up to speed on the net neutrality issue, I can't think of a better way to educate them. This war is going to be fought on multiple fronts, and public relations is a very large one.
yazaddaruvala 12y ago
Ideally everything legal entities write, that can be written for the public, should be written for the public. And when I say "for the public" I mean in terms the public can understand. So yes, including simile/metaphor.

gettingreal 12y ago

Is this just a USA problem? Why for example has SKY or TalkTalk in the UK not tried this? What is stopping them?

jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
Sky and TalkTalk both rather like having customers, and would be unhappy if any significant number of customers perceived Sky or Talktalk's service as being poor, and chose to move to a different ISP because of it. UK ISPs do/have used streaming video and buffering (or the absence of it) as a battleground of quality - you see companies making claims of fastest or "most reliable" broadband, and it gets them customers as a result. Mucking up people's ability to access Netflix would bring no benefit - people would just choose a different ISP. At least in the UK, where people have that choice. This situation may not apply in other countries.

panabee 12y ago

hopefully netflix continues this push toward broadband transparency. as justice louis brandeis said, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." it seems unreasonable for verizon and broadband providers to advertise, and charge consumers for, high-quality networks -- then try to pry money from data suppliers like netflix when usage rises. that said, is there a fair counterargument that justifies verizon's desire to charge both consumers for high-speed access and netflix for increased network usage?

rqebmm 12y ago
> is there a fair counterargument that justifies verizon's desire to charge both consumers for high-speed access and netflix for increased network usage? The closest approximation is "as a publicly traded company they owe it to their shareholders to make as much money as possible"

autokad 12y ago

doesnt this reek of hoax to anyone? Not just the 'response' letter, but the initial twitter 'screen shot' as well. Why in the world would an executive scan a letter like that opening them up to litigation? even if they were 'right', they would probably get fired for it.

lstamour 12y ago
I don't think they scanned it. The scribd account, at least, shows other similar documents uploaded by the same user, none of which were original up to now. I've no reason to doubt its authenticity. I bet it just spread outside the company by people who are interested in net neutrality.

thatthatis 12y ago

They might as well have addressed that letter to hacker news with a cc to verizon. Well executed PR move.

oldmanjay 12y ago

What I find most interesting about these topics is how many people come out to contribute to them. Nothing gets people riled up like vaguely threatening the free flow of entertainment. I wish I know how to direct this energy into something a little less disappointing.

crazy1van 12y ago

It is so aggravating to have Verizon pitch an upgrade to FiOS Quantum(!) every time I turn my DVR on. If my 25mbps connection can't stream a 5mbps video why would I pay extra for 50mbps? No thank you, Verizon.

tieTYT 12y ago

I don't know how Netflix figures out that it's Verizon that's slow, but lets say it's with some software that anyone could use. Wouldn't it benefit the entire Internet to open source that software so that anyone could use it? Or, barring that, provide an API that anyone can query. This way, any company can use the software and report the same thing to their customers. Lower the barrier to entry for Amazon/Google/Hulu/your startup to join the fight and inform the people.

warfangle 12y ago
mtr probably over time, comparing transit during and not during peak viewing times for a given isp

mantrax5 12y ago

It's becoming a habit that every week either telco responds to Netflix, or Netflix responds to telco. I'm slightly sick of these silly public letters. Why the hell either Netflix or said telcos feel like they need to bother the public with their internal problems, instead of solving them privately like adults? This is not about net neutrality. It's about who foots the bill for upgrading the network to handle the capacity that Netflix users need. Meter the damn traffic and let Netflix (and other heavy) users pay the telco and be done with it. God damn.

ossreality 12y ago
MAn you like to run you mouth. A a Netflix/Comcast customer, I'm already paying for that bandwidth. Netflix shouldn't pay more because Comcast is too lazy to invest in their infrastructure.