Export thread

So maybe you've heard that Netflix has agreed to pay Comcast to ensure its content is delivered to customers "with less slowdowns" than previously.

Comcast Corporation and Netflix, Inc. today announced a mutually beneficial interconnection agreement that will provide Comcast’s US broadband customers with a high-quality Netflix video experience for years to come. Working collaboratively over many months, the companies have established a more direct connection between Netflix and Comcast, similar to other networks, that’s already delivering an even better user experience to consumers, while also allowing for future growth in Netflix traffic. Netflix receives no preferential network treatment under the multi-year agreement, terms of which are not being disclosed*.

Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, Verizon's CEO is now talking about how they are negotiating the terms of Netflix's surrender similar upcoming peering agreement.

I would expect that we would [make a deal with Netflix]. I'm not here to pre-announce and I'm not here to change my hand at the negotiating table, but I think there's a good opportunity here. Both [Netflix CEO] Reed [Hastings] and I have talked about it and we think it's in both of our interests.

Click to expand...

Ooo, and it looks like AT&T is also now in negotiations for the same sort of agreement.

We’re in discussions with Netflix to establish a more direct connection between our networks, similar to agreements we have with others, so that AT&T broadband customers who use Netflix can enjoy an even better video experience.

Click to expand...

I guess we will get to tell our progeny that we were around when it all started, at least.

--Patrick
*"We promise everything we just said is true, and you can even verify it against this self-signed certificate."

Boy, net neutrality being smashed to pieces last month sure didn't take long to rear it's ugly ramifications encrusted head.

I know! It's almost like they were waiting for it.

--Patrick

Yes. Lets let them also get rid of land lines in favor of wireless so they have an even better reason to limit data usage.

'merica

The FCC is rewriting the rules so they should be fine in court while providing net neutrality. We'll see what happens.

I would be surprised if netflix didn't get an exclusive agreement, meaning that being first to the post, they will prevent Apple, Amazon and other streaming providers from getting the "premium" bandwidth netflix will get regardless of the deal offered.

This is a pretty nice place ya got here. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it...

Terrik said:

'merica

Click to expand...

stienman said:

I would be surprised if netflix didn't get an exclusive agreement, meaning that being first to the post, they will prevent Apple, Amazon and other streaming providers from getting the "premium" bandwidth netflix will get regardless of the deal offered.

Click to expand...

There's a loooong history of entities who scrabble and fight and claw and scratch their way to get into "the club" only to turn right around and scrabble and fight and claw and scratch to try and shut the door behind them to make sure nobody else can come in after them.

--Patrick

Ravenpoe said:

This is a pretty nice stallion ya got here. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it...

Click to expand...

This is not an issue of net neutrality.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...etflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html

TL;DR: Netflix has decided to bypass third-party content distribution networks like Akamai and Level 3 in favor of putting their servers directly in Comcast's network. They have basically cut out the middleman who used to run the network through which all of their streaming passed between the Netflix servers and the Comcast servers. This has nothing to do with content.

Soooo...they're totally surrounded by Comcast, but they're not owned by Comcast? Or are they only putting some servers inside of CC's network?

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Soooo...they're totally surrounded by Comcast, but they're not owned by Comcast? Or are they only putting some servers inside of CC's network?

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Previously, Netflix delivered their data to Akamai (and/or other third-party CDNs), who then delivered it to Comcast. These CDNs take data from content providers, consolidate it into one big pipe, and then distribute it to the ISPs, who deliver it to the customers' homes. In this arrangement, Netflix paid Akamai a distribution charge, who would take a cut, and pay Comcast for the access to their customers. Instead, Netflix has simply decided to build their own CDN and pipe their stuff directly into Comcast, paying them instead of the CDN. End result - data gets from Netflix to Comcast without the middleman, and Netflix pays less than they previously were because of reduced overhead. These new servers would only serve content to Comcast customers. They already have similar deals with many other smaller ISPs.

Of course, it could come to pass that Comcast decides to throttle Netflix for anti-competitive reasons, but that would find them in violation of their contract and would expose them to massive litigation, and nobody wants that.

papachronos said:

This is not an issue of net neutrality.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...etflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html

TL;DR: Netflix has decided to bypass third-party content distribution networks like Akamai and Level 3 in favor of putting their servers directly in Comcast's network. They have basically cut out the middleman who used to run the network through which all of their streaming passed between the Netflix servers and the Comcast servers. This has nothing to do with content.

Click to expand...

That's assuming that they had the choice to not make this move. If they had the choice between "put your servers directly on our network, or we'll throttle your bandwidth", that's still an issue of net neutrality. We don't know that there wasn't pressure put on Netflix forcing them into this deal. The history of cable companies having already tried to charage Netflix extra for prefferential treatment suggests to me that there was at least some amount of arm twisting involved in this.

Comcast currently has a deal in place with the FCC to follow the Open Web standards until 2018 (this was part of getting approval for their acquisition of NBC Universal), even though the standards were recently struck down in court. So while Comcast could very well have not bothered updating the infrastructure on their end where they connect with Cogent, which would detriment Netflix, they were most likely not doing any kind of packet shaping.

Covar said:

Comcast currently has a deal in place with the FCC to follow the Open Web standards until 2018 (this was part of getting approval for their acquisition of NBC Universal), even though the standards were recently struck down in court. So while Comcast could very well have not bothered updating the infrastructure on their end where they connect with Cogent, which would detriment Netflix, they were most likely not doing any kind of packet shaping.

Click to expand...

Wait, Comcast has NBC?

Then why the hell does NBC's website have shitty buffering so much when I'm a Comcast customer?

Comcast doesn't "have" NBC, Comcast is NBC/Universal.
From Wikipedia:

Subsidiaries
NBC, Universal Pictures,Universal Parks & Resorts,Focus Features, Telemundo,USA Network, Syfy, Chiller, E!,CNBC, MSNBC, NBC.com,NBCNews.com, iVillage,PictureBox Movies, Bravo,Esquire Network, Telemundo Television Studios, The Weather Channel, Hulu (32%)

--Patrick

Its worth remembering that this cuts both ways. Netflix can decide to decline a "priority" deal with a company like Verizon, and do so publicly (stating that the terms aren't affordable), making Verizon look like the bad guy. This could then encourage people to switch ISPs. It only really works in cities with multiple options, which isn't a lot of them, but its something.

Level 3, a company similar to Cogent, is weighing in on it now too.

Some ISPs, however, have refused to augment their networks UNLESS the content providers they connect to agree to pay them to do so. Viewed in the light most favorable to these ISPs, they want content suppliers to pay not only for their own increased costs of supplying more robust Internet content, but also for any increased network costs of the ISPs too. This is not only unreasonable on its face, but it is entirely inconsistent with published reports indicating that returns on invested capital for ISPs are excellent, and are expected to improve even further, driving considerable additional growth in economic profits. More cynically, these ISPs simply view these arbitrary tolls as new sources of revenue for their last mile bottleneck monopolies or as a way to unfairly discriminate against content that competes with the content the ISPs themselves supply.

Click to expand...

The way it's worded there, it almost sounds like the ISPs are setting up their own TSA-style checkpoints.

--Patrick

Web host gives FCC a 28.8Kbps slow lane in net neutrality protest



--Patrick

Even if a number of web hosts were to do this, I have to wonder if it'd make any difference unless someone came in with a counter-offer of money to the shitheads we let run our country.

Zero Esc said:

Even if a number of web hosts were to do this, I have to wonder if it'd make any difference unless someone came in with a counter-offer of money to the shitheads we let run our country.

Click to expand...

I'm hopeful that the plan is that the FCC will get the message (especially with all the other tech companies handing in their opinions[PDF]) that if they okay these sorts of payments, the tech companies may make extra-special-sure that if any web requests are going to get delayed, that it will probably start with the ones going to the FCC's internal IP block.

--Patrick

AshburnerX said:

FCC considering handling cable companies as utilities in wake of mass public protest.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I'd believe that, but words =/= actions.

FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

Apparently the phone calls against this were so heavy in volume that the FCC shut off their damn phones.

How dare people try to have a voice in how their government functions.

Zero Esc said:

Apparently the phone calls against this were so heavy in volume that the FCC shut off their damn phones.

Click to expand...

Yes. I believe they announced that they would prefer that any of this be sent to them via email.

So many Americans have called the FCC that an automated message now asks them to email “open Internet” comments to a new inbox instead.

Click to expand...

source

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Yes. I believe they announced that they would prefer that any of this be sent to them via email.

source

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Fuck that, they made the form so difficult to fill out it was super irritating. Lets keep shutting down their phone service, maybe they'll get the hint this isn't going away.

Well, here's a shock.

Contributions to House Members Lobbying against Net Neutrality from Cable Interests

The Congressmen who sent letters to the FCC condemning Net Neutrality received 2.3 times more campaign contributions from the cable industry than average.

Click to expand...

What's that sales trope about getting your mark to feel like (s)he "owes" you something in return?

--Patrick

I know this has been going around for a couple days, so not sure if everyone has already seen it.

Comcast CEO says he believes monthly data caps will be in place within 5 years, charging a flat rate for X amount and when the cap is reached charging more for each gigabyte after the cap.

Krisken said:

I know this has been going around for a couple days, so not sure if everyone has already seen it.

Comcast CEO says he believes monthly data caps will be in place within 5 years, charging a flat rate for X amount and when the cap is reached charging more for each gigabyte after the cap.

Click to expand...

It'll never happen, not with how quickly file sizes are increasing and how much of our infrastructure depends on net access at this point, especially if wireless starts getting faster. Hell, I don't even see Comcast existing in 10 years unless they perform some serious infrastructure upgrades because using your wireless plan will just make more sense. Cable only makes sense right now because people want to stream stuff to their TV and PC and don't have a better option with Wireless.

AshburnerX said:

It'll never happen, not with how quickly file sizes are increasing and how much of our infrastructure depends on net access at this point

Click to expand...

That's almost like saying, "Gas will never go above $1/gal." It all depends on how much demand there is, and how much the people who supply that demand want to take advantage of it.

--Patrick

4k and 3D 1080p streaming will suck up more bandwidth.

They will introduce tiered levels just so they can charge 2-3 times more for the unlimited plan.

Meanwhile, the Conglomerate Formerly Known As Ma Bell is going in a different route to get Directly to your TV.

Whitehouse.gov petition to remove Tom Wheeler as FCC Chairman.

21st Century Fox makes bid to buy Time Warner Inc

"It's a chance to put some great programming and content assets under one umbrella," a person close to the situation said.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

21st Century Fox makes bid to buy Time Warner Inc

Uh-huh.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

This is terrifying. Fox would have top-down control over all aspect of it's media empire, from how the movies get made to how the movies get to your phone.

AshburnerX said:

This is terrifying. Fox would have top-down control over all aspect of it's media empire, from how the movies get made to how the movies get to your phone.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's almost as if they'd be Sony.

GasBandit said:

Yeah, it's almost as if they'd be Sony.

Click to expand...

Sony doesn't control internet access. Also, the most profitable component of Sony is the wing that sells life insurance.

Ah, that's true, I forgot about the internet access part.

And does anyone buy Sony electronics anymore?

I would rather Fox buy Time Warner than Comcast buying them.

Do anti-trust laws exist still or did they have a sell-by date?

They do seem rather selectively enforced, don't they?

Yeah, anti-trust laws are pretty much a thing of the past. They have been legally shipped away over the years, not to mention that they never really covered oligopolies, which is what we're facing now.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation always ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. "
– Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X.

I think it's more that they've moved the goalposts significantly. The only thing that used to matter was how powerful their stranglehold on a market was. Now even the illusion of competition is enough to undermine it.

"Look, guys! We're totally staying within the letter of the Law. That means what we're doing must still be 100% legal!"
So what if they failed Ethics class, right?

Bowielee said:

They have been legally shipped away over the years

Click to expand...

Well, it certainly does sound like they're in bed together, at least.

--Patrick

Wait, wait, WAIT.

So we are letting people buy other people now?

Espy said:

Wait, wait, WAIT.

So we are letting people buy other people now?

Click to expand...

Corporate Personhood. All the advantages of individual rights with none of the responsibility, accountability, or legal ramifications.

Netrunner, here we come.

Mostly joking.

stienman said:

Corporations can be religious. Many religions allow or used to allow indentured servitude and even slavery. Ergo, corporations can buy other corporations.

Click to expand...

You could be on the supreme court!

You're all speed capped to popular sites you visit. Invest in a VPN connection folks.

stienman said:

Corporations can be religious.

Click to expand...

source

--Patrick

Jay said:

You're all speed capped to popular sites you visit. Invest in a VPN connection folks.

Click to expand...

The only thing I need uncapped bandwidth for is torrenting, and I can assure you I am not capped in that area (other than the fact that my connection is only 16 megabit, and a VPN won't help me with that).

Chattanooga public electricity utility offering faster cable than Comcast at a lower price.

Looks like having competition isn't something Comcast wants.

Krisken said:

Looks like having competition isn't something Comcast wants.

Click to expand...

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/18/comcasts_worst_nightmare_how_tennessee_could_save_americas_internet_partner/


--Patrick

Irritated customer proves Verizon *is* throttling netflix, no matter what they say.

http://hothardware.com/News/Enraged...mingly-Proving-ISP-Throttles-Netflix/#!bn7DXp

I checked my speeds and Cox does not throttle.

GasBandit said:

Irritated customer proves Verizon *is* throttling netflix, no matter what they say.

http://hothardware.com/News/Enraged...mingly-Proving-ISP-Throttles-Netflix/#!bn7DXp

Click to expand...

Plenty of people have replicated the same experiment. That means it's probably time to publish.

--Patrick

Hey guys, did you know your cable companies sometimes screw you over? You did? You can even prove? Great! Now go fuck off because you can't do anything about it.

Espy said:

Hey guys, did you know your cable companies sometimes screw you over? You did? You can even prove? Great! Now go fuck off because you can't do anything about it.

Click to expand...

Gas gets it.

One of the biggest mistakes our government has made is giving money to these bastards to build out infrastructure instead of building it out themselves and leasing it to them. Long live government funded oligopolies!

New article that gets some things right, and some things so very VERY wrong: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/wolff/2014/09/21/net-neutrality-debate/15881687/

It's this quote that shows a fundamental disconnect with how things work:

As much as 70% of Internet-distributed data is now video, 50% of it from Netflix. This new video industry — growing exponentially and transforming the nature of entertainment — is getting a free ride on the cable and telco investment in broadband.

Click to expand...

NO THEY'RE FUCKING NOT!!!! They pay for access. As does the consumer. The companies that are sad here are because they over-promise, and under-deliver: "Oh sure, you get 10Mbps. Uh huh. Ya. That's yours. *wink*wink*". And then if you try and actually USE the capacity you are paying for, they get upset, with things like caps on data usage. This is basically what they say next: "Well you weren't actually supposed to USE that the whole time! We only wanted you to burst a webpage, and then stop! We don't ACTUALLY have the capacity we're selling you! You're running us into the poor house, boo hoo, etc"

Same thing on the "Netflix" end of things. Their provider themselves might be charging appropriately, but then the under-built infrastructure of the "last mile" people get upset that all their customers, all at once, are always (essentially) watching video all night, and they can't keep up.


This whole "problem" came about because people started actually using the capacity of broadband, instead of just "bursts" of it, which the cable/last mile internet companies were banking on. And Billions of dollars are being spent on lobbying to keep it that way so that they can keep selling capacity they don't have.

This article brought to you by the Koch brothers.

Eriol said:

NO THEY'RE FUCKING NOT!!!! They pay for access. As does the consumer. The companies that are sad here are because they over-promise, and under-deliver: "Oh sure, you get 10Mbps. Uh huh. Ya. That's yours. *wink*wink*". And then if you try and actually USE the capacity you are paying for, they get upset, with things like caps on data usage. This is basically what they say next: "Well you weren't actually supposed to USE that the whole time! We only wanted you to burst a webpage, and then stop! We don't ACTUALLY have the capacity we're selling you! You're running us into the poor house, boo hoo, etc"

Click to expand...

Pretty much this. It's like if telephone companies tried to claim that people having 3 hour telephone conversations were getting a "free ride" on unlimited long distance plans. Uh, what? If you pay for unlimited long distance, and your friend pays for unlimited long distance, then there's no "free ride" involved. If telcos didn't anticipate how popular long phone calls would be, that's their problem, because they sold a service that they couldn't deliver.

figmentPez said:

If telcos didn't anticipate how popular long phone calls would be, that's their problem, because they sold a service that they couldn't deliver.

Click to expand...

"unlimited data"

--Patrick

figmentPez said:

Pretty much this. It's like if telephone companies tried to claim that people having 3 hour telephone conversations were getting a "free ride" on unlimited long distance plans. Uh, what? If you pay for unlimited long distance, and your friend pays for unlimited long distance, then there's no "free ride" involved. If telcos didn't anticipate how popular long phone calls would be, that's their problem, because they sold a service that they couldn't deliver.

Click to expand...

The real problems are the lack of competition that keep the markets stagnant, the massive conflict of interest have with video providing services. It has nothing to do with popularity and infrastructure. It's them wanting to gouge out fresh competitors that are gaining traction. It's the same reason these guys are making TV+Internet bundles cheaper than Internet only rates to customers that try and cancel their cable.

figmentPez said:

Pretty much this. It's like if telephone companies tried to claim that people having 3 hour telephone conversations were getting a "free ride" on unlimited long distance plans. Uh, what? If you pay for unlimited long distance, and your friend pays for unlimited long distance, then there's no "free ride" involved. If telcos didn't anticipate how popular long phone calls would be, that's their problem, because they sold a service that they couldn't deliver.

Click to expand...

That's a good parallel actually. I'm going to use that one to explain the problem here to people who "understand" a telephone call, but don't understand the internet situation.

Covar said:

these guys are making TV+Internet bundles cheaper than Internet only rates to customers that try and cancel their cable.

Click to expand...

I am wholeheartedly sick of this.
"We will bundle telephone, television, and Internet for just $65/month for the first year! What's that? You only want the Internet part of the package? That'll be $59.95/month."
It's times like that my mind turns to thoughts of violence.

--Patrick

Eriol said:

That's a good parallel actually. I'm going to use that one to explain the problem here to people who "understand" a telephone call, but don't understand the internet situation.

Click to expand...

I think it's a lot more like if you were to call a business to place an order, your phone company may or may not complete the call unless the business paid them a premium. Even though the business has a completely different phone provider. All because that business is making money off their phone lines.

PatrThom said:

I am wholeheartedly sick of this.
"We will bundle telephone, television, and Internet for just $65/month for the first year! What's that? You only want the Internet part of the package? That'll be $59.95/month."
It's times like that my mind turns to thoughts of violence.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

You think that's sick, like I mentioned, I've heard stories where in customer retention, customers are offered "deals" where the TV+Internet is cheaper than the Internet only.

Shakey said:

I think it's a lot more like if you were to call a business to place an order, your phone company may or may not complete the call unless the business paid them a premium. Even though the business has a completely different phone provider. All because that business is making money off their phone lines.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I like the pizza delivery call analogy. Imagine if telcos tried to claim that the calls for pizza delivery on Saturday nights were overloading their circuits, so that they'd have to charge the pizza companies more, or have them miss calls. Pizza Hut pays up, so you can call them no problem, but you might get a busy signal calling Dominos, until they pay up too, then it'll just be the local place that you can't reach, because they can't afford to make a national deal like the big chains.

figmentPez said:

Yeah, I like the pizza delivery call analogy. Imagine if telcos tried to claim that the calls for pizza delivery on Saturday nights were overloading their circuits, so that they'd have to charge the pizza companies more, or have them miss calls. Pizza Hut pays up, so you can call them no problem, but you might get a busy signal calling Dominos, until they pay up too, then it'll just be the local place that you can't reach, because they can't afford to make a national deal like the big chains.

Click to expand...

Which is a shame, cause that local place has the BEST pizza in the area. That's the opposite of a free and open market allowing the best businesses to thrive.

Keep refining the example guys. It keeps getting better & better. The Pizza place analogy is great.

Eriol said:

Keep refining the example guys. It keeps getting better & better. The Pizza place analogy is great.

Click to expand...

I think that one sums it up about as good as it gets.

ISPs want to include data caps if the definition of "broadband" gets the proposed revision upwards from 4Mbps -> 10Mbps.

--Patrick

Comcast is the only option for my apartment complex, so there's shit that I can do even if a service provider appears that doesn't pull this crap.