Serious question on Net Neutrality

The Coffee Shop
1

Since it’s a hot topic at the moment, there’s something I wish I understood better. The trigger of this fight seems to be Comcast allegedly successfully extorting Netflix by throttling consumers of Netflix content. As a consumer, I do agree with the ‘F you, I’m paying $x/month for yMB/s download speeds, it shouldn’t matter from where’. But Netflix must already be paying connection fees to upload content, so why isn’t this just a commercial argument that Netflix is exceeding the bandwidth they pay for and a new rate needs to be negotiated? Doesn’t any content provider, whether Google or Netflix or Slowtwitch.com, pay for the internet bandwidth their customer base requires? What am I missing? Is it that Netflix pays for their internet connection to another ISP, like Verizon, and what Comcast wants amounts to a cut of that?

Brian

2

They already do pay. Then you pay. Then they pay more. Then you pay more. That’s the model without net neutrality.

Businesses have different connections based on more bandwidth and server space than households. If you use lots of Internet your ISP will assume you’re running a business and cut you off before demanding you pay business rates.

3

But Netflix must already be paying connection fees to upload content, so why isn’t this just a commercial argument that Netflix is exceeding the bandwidth they pay for and a new rate needs to be negotiated?

Netflix doesn’t pay Comcast to be on the internet. Netflix expends money to run their servers and run their infrastructure, which connects to the internet. The whole thing here is that Comcast (and other ISPs) have figured out a way to extract money from those services who previously weren’t expected to pay ISPs. The internet isn’t like cable TV, where all the pay channels actually pay the cable company to be part of their package. Otherwise every website on the internet would have to pay a fee to every ISP, or risk not being visible on the internet in areas those ISPs service.

Comcast is just a delivery platform for you to access the internet in your home. You pay Comcast, and get access to the entire internet at whatever speed you paid for. You pay for access to the whole internet at that speed, not just certain sites at certain times. And you pay Netflix for their service, which is available through the internet. Until recently, Netflix wasn’t paying Comcast, and Cox, and AT&T, etc. Now they’re basically being extorted into paying a “toll”, otherwise the ISPs throttle down the bandwidth for Netflix so that it’s virtually unusable, or at least provides substandard service.

4

Is it that Netflix pays for their internet connection to another ISP, like Verizon, and what Comcast wants amounts to a cut of that?
Basically. Although Netflix is too large to go through a traditional, consumer ISP, they probably own their own infrastructure connect directly to a tier 1 network, or go through some kind of non-consumer ISP which connects directly to a tier 1 network…

5

But Netflix must already be paying connection fees to upload content, so why isn’t this just a commercial argument that Netflix is exceeding the bandwidth they pay for and a new rate needs to be negotiated?

Netflix doesn’t pay Comcast to be on the internet. Netflix expends money to run their servers and run their infrastructure, which connects to the internet. The whole thing here is that Comcast (and other ISPs) have figured out a way to extract money from those services who previously weren’t expected to pay ISPs. The internet isn’t like cable TV, where all the pay channels actually pay the cable company to be part of their package. Otherwise every website on the internet would have to pay a fee to every ISP, or risk not being visible on the internet in areas those ISPs service.

Comcast is just a delivery platform for you to access the internet in your home. You pay Comcast, and get access to the entire internet at whatever speed you paid for. You pay for access to the whole internet at that speed, not just certain sites at certain times. And you pay Netflix for their service, which is available through the internet. Until recently, Netflix wasn’t paying Comcast, and Cox, and AT&T, etc. Now they’re basically being extorted into paying a “toll”, otherwise the ISPs throttle down the bandwidth for Netflix so that it’s virtually unusable, or at least provides substandard service.

Adding to what slowguy said, the “average consumer” isn’t aware that it’s Comcast that is making Netflix shitty by throttling. They just know that Netflix is shitty and that seriously hurts the brand. Thus they are pretty much forced to pay up.

6

Verizon did that too. Then lied about it.

7

But Netflix must already be paying connection fees to upload content, so why isn’t this just a commercial argument that Netflix is exceeding the bandwidth they pay for and a new rate needs to be negotiated?

Netflix doesn’t pay Comcast to be on the internet. Netflix expends money to run their servers and run their infrastructure, which connects to the internet. The whole thing here is that Comcast (and other ISPs) have figured out a way to extract money from those services who previously weren’t expected to pay ISPs. The internet isn’t like cable TV, where all the pay channels actually pay the cable company to be part of their package. Otherwise every website on the internet would have to pay a fee to every ISP, or risk not being visible on the internet in areas those ISPs service.

Comcast is just a delivery platform for you to access the internet in your home. You pay Comcast, and get access to the entire internet at whatever speed you paid for. You pay for access to the whole internet at that speed, not just certain sites at certain times. And you pay Netflix for their service, which is available through the internet. Until recently, Netflix wasn’t paying Comcast, and Cox, and AT&T, etc. Now they’re basically being extorted into paying a “toll”, otherwise the ISPs throttle down the bandwidth for Netflix so that it’s virtually unusable, or at least provides substandard service.

Allow me to offer the other side of the story.

Netflix could fix it’s own issue by placing it’s content closer to the end user. Like Comcast already does with it’s thousands of local private networks pushing Video on Demand. Like Amazon does and every other major bandwidth player does who delivers a lot of content to the end user, quickly and with little issues.

But why should Netflix do this when they can buy-off big government politicians, instead?

8

But Netflix must already be paying connection fees to upload content, so why isn’t this just a commercial argument that Netflix is exceeding the bandwidth they pay for and a new rate needs to be negotiated?

Netflix doesn’t pay Comcast to be on the internet. Netflix expends money to run their servers and run their infrastructure, which connects to the internet. The whole thing here is that Comcast (and other ISPs) have figured out a way to extract money from those services who previously weren’t expected to pay ISPs. The internet isn’t like cable TV, where all the pay channels actually pay the cable company to be part of their package. Otherwise every website on the internet would have to pay a fee to every ISP, or risk not being visible on the internet in areas those ISPs service.

Comcast is just a delivery platform for you to access the internet in your home. You pay Comcast, and get access to the entire internet at whatever speed you paid for. You pay for access to the whole internet at that speed, not just certain sites at certain times. And you pay Netflix for their service, which is available through the internet. Until recently, Netflix wasn’t paying Comcast, and Cox, and AT&T, etc. Now they’re basically being extorted into paying a “toll”, otherwise the ISPs throttle down the bandwidth for Netflix so that it’s virtually unusable, or at least provides substandard service.

Allow me to offer the other side of the story.

Netflix could fix it’s own issue by placing it’s content closer to the end user. Like Comcast already does with it’s thousands of local private networks pushing Video on Demand. Like Amazon does and every other major bandwidth player does who delivers a lot of content to the end user, quickly and with little issues.

But why should Netflix do this when they can buy-off big government politicians, instead?

It appears that the megaphone for the anus of the republican party (FOX noise channel) has succesfully tricked its veiwers once again.

9

Today, President Obama came out in support of net neutrality, asking the FCC to reclassify broadband as a public utility. This would help stop ISPs from creating “internet slow lanes” and throttling customers. Senator Ted Cruz—who **accepted **campaign funds from telcom giant Comcast—immediately fired back with this incendiary tweet:

“Net Neutrality” is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government."

Comparing net neutrality to Obamacare is basically the most insulting parallel a conservative senator can make—half buzzword, half slur, and 100% cynical.
Cruz’s communications director got in on the action, too:
This is a disingenuous, chickenshit political maneuver and nothing more.
Ted Cruz and his team have the facts wrong about net neutrality. Obama specifically said the government would NOT be in charge of pricing: “I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services.”
Emphasis mine. Government will not rate regulate and saying so is lying (or maybe they didn’t actually read the statement?).
Cruz is one of the most powerful people in Congress, and he’s considering a presidential run in 2016. He’s on the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, which handles internet governance and FCC oversight. This is a man people give their attention, which makes this statement dangerous as well as disingenuous.
Cruz is rallying his supporters by denigrating the Obama administration’s politics. He is conflating a hatred with anything Obama stands for with a hatred for this particular stance, which is a rational and potentially bipartisan solution to a problem that affects everyone across the aisle (or at least everyone across the aisle without ties to the ISPs).
Obama is not saying the government should wrest control from private companies and start administering the Internet itself. He is trying to keep the Internet as an equalizer. There is no need for political polarization here.
But political polarization we’re gonna get. Cruz isn’t alone in trying to characterize a push to protect consumers as a socialist—or at the least, bureaucratic—nightmare. Broadband for America had this to say:

President Barack Obama’s endorsement of 1930’s era Title II classification would lead to unprecedented government interference in the Internet and would hurt consumers and innovation. Further, for the President to issue this directive is a threat to the independence of the FCC itself. By vastly expanding the regulatory bureaucracy over the internet, the administration is turning its back on 20 years of bipartisan consensus that has allowed the Internet to flourish. The President’s approach would threaten millions of jobs and a diverse array of stakeholders including, labor, civil-rights organization, and tech companies, who have long advocated for a far more restrained approach.

The characterization that reclassifying the internet as a utility will hamper innovation and introduce a byzantine influx of administrative red tape is wrong, and it obscures the actual issue at hand here: Net neutrality protection is what is best for consumers. It will not choke off chances for innovation; it will ensure that innovators from across the socioeconomic spectrum will have a more level playing field when it comes to receiving information.
ISPs are moving away from net neutrality in their attempts to throttle and lay out premium traffic lanes. This is one of those attacks on our freedoms you hear about on Fox News.
The government will not determine the speed of the internet, it will simply stop ISPs from slowing service down. Obama is asking private companies to treat their customers fairly; there is no part of his plan that involves the government seizing control of providers.
Freedom is a word that gets thrown around a lot in politics. Conservatives believe big government curtails freedoms. This can happen, and it is important to interrogate when and why the government creates and enforces new legislation. If the FCC authorizes the internet fast lane rules, the government will be stifling innovation and hurting its citizens. But the government is not the only force that can constrict freedom.

10

Netflix has been doing that for awhile now, or at least offering to ISPs. https://gigaom.com/2013/06/20/how-netflix-built-its-openconnect-cache-to-speed-up-your-video-streams/

Comcast and Verizon offer their own competing services, just like VoIP. And thus they want and need to throttle their competitors.

Normally I would say, let the free market have at it and see what model wins, but it already isn’t a free and open market. Most cable companies have government mandated monopolies.

11

Why in the world do you need to edit a post that is entirely cut and paste?

12

Wait, so you think google, microsoft, netflix, amazon etc, all of one big giant datacenter with massive wires going into it?

Each of those companies, have 10s if not hundreds of datacenters geographically distributed, not only to provide reduced access times, but to provide a ridiculous amounts of redundancy.

Google can have an entire datacenter fail - and it’s very likely that none of us will every hear about it or even notice.

In fact, I think Netflix pays amazon a butt load of money to provide them computing resources.

13

Really, you should just stop posting. Do you ever tire about being wrong when you blame Republicans for everything?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ure-of-the-internet/

“Hours after President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on high-speed Internet providers, the agency’s Democratic chairman told a group of business executives that he was moving in a different direction. Huddled in an FCC conference room Monday with officials from major Web companies, including Google, Yahoo and Etsy, agency Chairman Tom Wheeler said he has preferred a more nuanced solution. That approach would deliver some of what Obama wants but also would address the concerns of the companies that provide Internet access to millions of Americans, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T.”

I think I know who’s talking out their anus…

Spot

ETA: Here’s a shocker…Netflix’s political donations go overwhelmingly to Democrats. Including President Obama. http://www.buybackyourvote.com/company/netflix#t=graph&v=party&se=&st=&y=2012&ch=n

14

Wait, so you think google, microsoft, netflix, amazon etc, all of one big giant datacenter with massive wires going into it?

Each of those companies, have 10s if not hundreds of datacenters geographically distributed, not only to provide reduced access times, but to provide a ridiculous amounts of redundancy.

Google can have an entire datacenter fail - and it’s very likely that none of us will every hear about it or even notice.

In fact, I think Netflix pays amazon a butt load of money to provide them computing resources.

20 years in telecom. I know it pretty well. I was offering an alternate view to the pick-fork mob going after Comcast, AT&T, etc. I’m not on either side of this issue.

If Netflix wanted to fix their problem, on their own, they could. But it would cost millions more over buying-off politcians who can get them into the Comcast and AT&T local centers. It’s a plan that previously worked for WorldCom back in the 1980s.

15

So are you saying that Netflix isn’t purchasing enough backend bandwidth to support their infrastructure?

16

Netflix could fix it’s own issue by placing it’s content closer to the end user.

How? Comcast owns the entryway to the internet for their customers. No matter what Netflix does, their data has to go through Comcast for the last bit prior to getting into a customer’s home. Absent Netflix starting it’s own ISP service, I’m not sure what they could do to get around the ISPs.

17

Netflix could fix it’s own issue by placing it’s content closer to the end user.

How? Comcast owns the entryway to the internet for their customers. No matter what Netflix does, their data has to go through Comcast for the last bit prior to getting into a customer’s home. Absent Netflix starting it’s own ISP service, I’m not sure what they could do to get around the ISPs.

Even if they tried, Comcast would go to court to get an injunction to prevent them from doing it. It’s their m.o.

18

So are you saying that Netflix isn’t purchasing enough backend bandwidth to support their infrastructure?

I don’t know what Netflix is doing but I would assume they are already doing about everything they can other than to be co-located inside Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. data centers. And I am assuming that is what they want.

19

Netflix could fix it’s own issue by placing it’s content closer to the end user.

How? Comcast owns the entryway to the internet for their customers. No matter what Netflix does, their data has to go through Comcast for the last bit prior to getting into a customer’s home. Absent Netflix starting it’s own ISP service, I’m not sure what they could do to get around the ISPs.

The same way Worldcom got around AT&T (sort of). The courts ordered it. Netflix could build out it’s own local network but it’s far less expensive to co-locate inside the Comcast or AT&T data center and have equal access to the local network.

It really is the 1980s telecommunications act all over again. Equal access to the local network.

20

But Netflix must already be paying connection fees to upload content, so why isn’t this just a commercial argument that Netflix is exceeding the bandwidth they pay for and a new rate needs to be negotiated?

Netflix doesn’t pay Comcast to be on the internet. Netflix expends money to run their servers and run their infrastructure, which connects to the internet. The whole thing here is that Comcast (and other ISPs) have figured out a way to extract money from those services who previously weren’t expected to pay ISPs. The internet isn’t like cable TV, where all the pay channels actually pay the cable company to be part of their package. Otherwise every website on the internet would have to pay a fee to every ISP, or risk not being visible on the internet in areas those ISPs service.

Comcast is just a delivery platform for you to access the internet in your home. You pay Comcast, and get access to the entire internet at whatever speed you paid for. You pay for access to the whole internet at that speed, not just certain sites at certain times. And you pay Netflix for their service, which is available through the internet. Until recently, Netflix wasn’t paying Comcast, and Cox, and AT&T, etc. Now they’re basically being extorted into paying a “toll”, otherwise the ISPs throttle down the bandwidth for Netflix so that it’s virtually unusable, or at least provides substandard service.

Allow me to offer the other side of the story.

Netflix could fix it’s own issue by placing it’s content closer to the end user. Like Comcast already does with it’s thousands of local private networks pushing Video on Demand. Like Amazon does and every other major bandwidth player does who delivers a lot of content to the end user, quickly and with little issues.

But why should Netflix do this when they can buy-off big government politicians, instead?

Allow me to offer another take on the other side of the story. =)

Netflix traffic represents ~34% of all internet traffic.

Did Netflix have to pay for 34% of the infrastructure necessary to deliver that data to you? A: No.
Did Netflix have to pay even one dollar for the marginal increase the network needed to move their traffic? A: No.
Does Netflix have the US government limiting how much profit it can make, like Verizon? A: No.

The question is: will companies quickly and adequately build the infrastructure we need as consumers when the US government limits the profitability of those investments? It doesn’t necessarily have to be a disaster. At the same time, don’t go complaining about internet service levels in the USA versus other countries when we regulate away the obvious market signals to build a better, more responsive network.