Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the playing-the-game dept.

The Internet 466

jayp00001 (267507) writes "'As we all know, there is no free lunch, and there’s also no cost-free delivery of streaming movies. Someone has to pay that cost. Mr. Hastings' arrogant proposition is that everyone else should pay but Netflix. That may be a nice deal if he can get it. But it's not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked,' writes AT&T Senior Executive Vice President of Legislative Affairs, James Cicconi. Mr. Cicconi took issue with a blog post from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings on the importance of net neutrality.

cancel ×

466 comments

It's not arrogant, it's correct. (5, Insightful)

BronsCon (927697) | about 4 months ago | (#46567079)

Your customers pay you, as their provider, Netflix pays their provider, and it's between you and their provider to determine who, if anyone, pays who, based on the flow of traffic.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (5, Insightful)

Qwerpafw (315600) | about 4 months ago | (#46567203)

Put another way:

* Netflix pays for their bandwidth
* Customers pay for their bandwidth

And yet, AT&T wants more money because they think they have the right to charge Netflix more to pass through their tollbooth.

People aren't paying for "Internet except for Netflix" and Netflix isn't paying their bandwidth costs for "Internet except for consumers."

AT&T, and other providers, should have no right to put up walls. If there are issues of peering, those should be working out at the peering level, and not at the application/service or individual business level.

The news about Apple being willing to pay for AppleTV to have a "special line" to consumers is particularly worrisome and strikes the core of the problems with anti-net neutrality positions: they create unfair markets with barriers to competition. Netflix may complain, but they can (and do! with Comcast) pay if they have to. Apple can afford to pay the gatekeepers as well.

But some new startup (Aereo, for example) or small business? They can't and won't be able to pay those gatekeeper tolls to reach consumers. And they'll be prevented from competing or disrupting.

Big business will thrive in an anti-net neutrality world. Honestly, it might even help Netflix in the long run as barriers to any competing service will be high. But it's anticompetitive and small businesses and startups alike will be prevented from innovating, and maybe even be driven out of the market by an inability to pay these tolls.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (4, Insightful)

udachny (2454394) | about 4 months ago | (#46567311)

And yet, AT&T wants more money because they think they have the right to charge Netflix more to pass through their tollbooth.

- it's not their 'tollbooth', it's their road. On a road you can charge different rates for different types of vehicles, this is the same situation. An eighteen wheeler can cause more damage to the road that requires more maintenance than a motorcycle, this is the same thing: a movie that needs to be streamed a million times takes up much more capacity and energy and basically uses the system much more than millions of small individual requests do.

See, I even used an appropriate car analogy.

Re: It's not arrogant, it's correct. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567417)

time to take away their roads.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (5, Insightful)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about 4 months ago | (#46567421)

No it is like phone calls. The person who initiates the call pays. They pay because they are the one who is creating congestion. Netflix is not generating any traffic. AT&T customers generate the traffic when they open thier browsers and start downloading movies. It is not Netflix desision that AT&T charges all its customers the same thing. Netflix should not be punished because AT&T promises high speed connections with unlimited access. That is AT&T's fault.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567457)

a movie that needs to be streamed a million times takes up much more capacity and energy

No it doesn't. 10 GB of traffic uses up exactly the same capacity each time it's streamed regardless of whether it's a movie or cat pictures.

If you charge more for heavy trucks you have to charge all trucks.
You can't just charge wall-mart trucks double because you don't like them.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (3, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 months ago | (#46567481)

But they're only shipping packets. It's more like NetFlix is driving eighteen million motorcycles and doesn't want to be charged five times as much per motorcycle; in fact, they should pay less due to bulk rate discount.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567485)

Okay, so should the road owner (AT&T/Comcast) be charging the owner of the eighteen-wheelers that come onto their roads (Level 3, etc.), or the company whose freight is contained within those trucks (Netflix)?

Netflix pay Level 3 to deliver the freight. Level 3 pay AT&T to use their roads. Netflix only use AT&T's roads through Level 3's service, so why should Netflix have to pay AT&T directly?

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (2)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#46567647)

because direct peering with ISP's means netflix can go around level 3 and cogent and save money

it's not like they are paying AT&T and comcast and also paying their Tier 1 providers. netflix is now connecting straight from their data centers to the ISP's on dedicated fiber links and bypassing the Tier 1 networks all together

some idiots can't seem to understand this

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567537)

You know what it's called when you charge vehicles for traveling on "your" road, a Toll, so yes his analogy is 100% correct, you just reinforced it.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 4 months ago | (#46567541)

Dude you're a freaking moron. As has been stated Netflix pays for their bandwidth and Customers pay for their bandwidth. AT&T wants to double dip. And if you think that's o.k. is AT&T going to refund the billions of tax payer dollars given to the telecommunications industries to roll out their fiber cables??? Hmmm....douche.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567573)

But netflix is not an eighteen wheeler nor a an ordinary car. It will one of those depending on the user who is streaming a movie. Say a user with 10mbps line is an ordinary sedan and another user with 100mbps line as humongous truck. It does not matter whether they are watching netflix or updating code from github. They will be able to "congest the road" as much as ISP let's them.
What is actually happening is that AT&T is overselling their bandwidth, since up till now most users needed short bursts of fast internet. However, with youtube, netflix, apple tv and whatever else streaming services, it becomes apparent that they have sold more bandwidth than they actually have and they want these services to pay for their lack of math skills. Alternatively, they are actually very good businessmen and they will get some random companies to pay for the upkeep of the service that AT&T is selling.

I think it is the latter.

It's their road (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 months ago | (#46567609)

That I have paid $68/month to use at a given speed. And they are refusing me...and no there really isn't a capacity issue in most places. It's a bullshit greedy ass mo fo issue.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 4 months ago | (#46567633)

A road largely paid for one way or the other by taxpayers.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (2)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | about 4 months ago | (#46567419)

Not just that, but from what I've seen in other news bits... The consumer side ISPs want to charge their customers, Netflix, and Netflix ISP... So they are being paid triple for the same bandwidth. How exactly that is supposed to be 'normal' is left up to the craziness of those saying such things.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 months ago | (#46567461)

Their large problems are as thus:

Firstly, they can only charge those who peer to them. NetFlix using a Tier 3 provider would resell AT&T, who would charge the Tier 3 provider for bandwidth, which would essentially charge NetFlix for bandwidth. If NetFlix picks another Tier 1 or Tier 3 who resells a different Tier 1, AT&T can no longer charge NetFlix; they're stuck with their peering deals between Tier 1 providers.

Secondly, not being allowed to charge NetFlix for bandwidth passing through another Tier 1 peering arrangement means they need to compete on a market with all players--they can't make a move against NetFlix due to their negotiating position (inexperience, high amounts of capital and less inclination to squeeze out a favorable deal, business criticality, etc.), rather they must deal directly with all of their Level 1 peers and all of their Level 3 resellers and direct clients. If they make up a cost schedule that NetFlix will submit to but Google will not, then Google will argue down the cost schedule and they will bill NetFlix less; if they refuse to budge, Google will move to another Tier 1; and if they try to shift the costs onto a stratified consumption model and increase the cost at the lower usage levels, their lower usage clients will move to a Tier 1 without big players who charges less.

In the end, they don't want a level playing field. The providers want a playing field where they can extract maximum profits from the weak, particularly the rich and weak.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#46567575)

google has done direct peering with ISP's for years now, you are way behind the times. not only that, but they own buildings where different network providers peer with each other

google has so much internet backbone they own they are moving into the last mile ISP business just to use up the bandwidth they have

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (1)

Ioldanach (88584) | about 4 months ago | (#46567599)

Put another way:

* Netflix pays for their bandwidth * Customers pay for their bandwidth

And yet, AT&T wants more money because they think they have the right to charge Netflix more to pass through their tollbooth.

In a typical peering arrangement, both sides of the link pass roughly equal amounts of data to the other side. Netflix, however, gives Cogent so much data that the peering links are lop sided. Cogent delivers a lot of content, and receives very little. In such an unbalanced situation, the side with more data to serve typically pays a transit fee for the use of the other network.

Cogent doesn't want to pay the transit fee. If they had to pay the transit fee, they'd have to pass that along to Netflix, and Netflix would have to raise the rates they charge their subscribers.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (5, Insightful)

Burdell (228580) | about 4 months ago | (#46567605)

Netflix pays for their bandwidth

Well, but they don't always, at least not as much as anybody else. Several times in recent years, Netflix has switched bandwidth providers to "wanna-be tier 1" networks; that is, networks that are not as well-connected as they'd like to be because they don't really meet anybody's requirements for settlement-free peering. These providers see Netflix as leverage against their bigger competitors and appear to have sold Netflix bandwidth at well market prices in order to strong-arm competitors to provide new network interconnects.

Large networks don't just peer with anybody. There are costs involved in each additional turn-up, both for hardware ports and for the management side. They also don't just peer at a single or few locations (since that can allow outsider actors to cause drastic changes in internal network bandwidth utilization); they require other large networks to peer in a bunch of different places. Some of the smaller networks can't afford to do that, and want to dump large traffic hogs like Netflix at already congested peering points, and then complain that the big guys didn't bend over backwards to help them.

I've worked for small to very-small ISPs for over 18 years, and I definately don't hold Netflix blameless in this. They do things they know will impact their customers and then blame the other networks for all problems (and they aren't the only one, just one of the biggest in recent years).

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (4, Informative)

Lloyd_Bryant (73136) | about 4 months ago | (#46567221)

Your customers pay you, as their provider, Netflix pays their provider, and it's between you and their provider to determine who, if anyone, pays who, based on the flow of traffic.

What, you mean that someone who pays his ISP for a connection to the Internet shouldn't have to pay extra if he actually wants to use that bandwidth? I'm pretty sure that'd be classified as communism, or terrorism, or whatever the 'ism of the month is.

ISPs will fight tooth and nail to keep from becoming the "dumb pipes" that true net neutrality would make them. Because then they wouldn't be able to siphon off the profits of companies that have actually innovated themselves a business in the Internet space, rather than just continuing to make a buck off of their infrastructure semi-monopolies.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (0)

killkillkill (884238) | about 4 months ago | (#46567349)

Ultimately the customer is going to end up paying more. Most likely the raised prices will hit everyone, not just those of us who use Netflix. So, it's good to know that those who can barely afford service with basic plans will be subsidizing my leisure time activities. I sure don't want to pay for it all.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (3, Interesting)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 4 months ago | (#46567695)

I'm not sure this is what you and GP are alluding to, but the elephant in the room here is the "metered internet" option. You know, like you get a higher electric bill if you use more electricity, a higher water bill if you use more water, like you used to get a higher phone bill if you would make more phone calls, and like the ISPs have higher costs if their customers consume more bandwidth. Ironically, a lot of US customers are vehemently against metered Internet, even though the current system amounts to some form of "socialism", and metered internet would be fairer and would arguably allow for more competition between providers, making internet cheaper for everyone except the few % bandwidth hogs. Incidentally, metered internet would also defeat all those whiny dissonant anti-net-neutrality arguments the ISPs are making.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567519)

You Idiot, that's exactly what customers expect, that's exactly what customers are legally entitled to.

Why you ask? Because that's the way the law is written, so ISPs don't have a choice in the matter.

Net neutrality stands and any ISP that wants to abuse that can have their license pulled and be put out of business, and right now, I'm all for the big ones being put out of business entirely, all their assets siezed, made common carrier, all patents public domain, all copyrights public domain - nothing sold, and all execs spend time in prison for their larceny.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about 4 months ago | (#46567523)

Are you really that stupid? Think before you type.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 4 months ago | (#46567345)

I think that everyone agrees, that. The point is who pays for the carrying of data between the providers. OK: what I pay my ISP should also pay for them to fetch/send my bytes onwards in the Internet as well. I will cost my ISP less if I choose to download something from a local mirror than if I grab it from the other side of the world. Netflix are aware of that and have the Open Connect Content Delivery Network [netflix.com] , but that won't solve all the probelms.

Between them Netflix and YouTube made up more than 50 percent of peak downstream Internet traffic in N America [pcmag.com] , so it is a significant issue.

Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (1)

zerosomething (1353609) | about 4 months ago | (#46567653)

If we had true net neutrality Netflix might be the only content you could get at a reasonable speed, it would be cached all over the net. Content form Vimeo would play second fiddle to the Netflix congestion. I might not even get the content because my 18 neighbors are all watching 18 different shows on Netflix. Net neutrality doesn't solve this nor does providers paying for access.

Between Netflix and Youtube (2)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 months ago | (#46567657)

They're also the reason we're willing to pay $70/month for internet.

Not how it works? (3, Interesting)

sqorbit (3387991) | about 4 months ago | (#46567085)

"But it's not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked,' Hasn't that how the internet has been? If someone calls me to play a song they wrote over the phone should they pay a fee to provide me that entertainment over the phone?

Re:Not how it works? (1)

Ioldanach (88584) | about 4 months ago | (#46567635)

"But it's not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked,' Hasn't that how the internet has been? If someone calls me to play a song they wrote over the phone should they pay a fee to provide me that entertainment over the phone?

They had to pay for their phone connection and you had to pay for yours. (We'll ignore the possibility of long distance charges.) If they went with a cut rate provider, though, their end might be choppy and not provide you with quality entertainment.

Pretty Sure Netflix is Paying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567107)

I suspect they're cutting a check every month to someone for their internet connections.

WE pay (5, Insightful)

btpier (587890) | about 4 months ago | (#46567111)

Doesn't my monthly ISP bill pay for that delivery already?

Re:WE pay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567549)

No. You're only paying for a connection to your ISP's datacenter.

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567655)

Liar.

So what am I paying for? (3, Insightful)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 4 months ago | (#46567117)

What exactly does my cable bill give me then, if not access to services on the web?

Re:So what am I paying for? (3, Insightful)

geek (5680) | about 4 months ago | (#46567403)

What exactly does my cable bill give me then, if not access to services on the web?

I'll give you a simple example of what the Telcos want this to be like:

My wife and I went to a new wine tasting place here in town. They touted the fact they have more wine tasting machines than anywhere else in the world. You walk up to it, insert your payment and choose the oz you want and the type and you get it in a little tasting cup. Sounds simple right? It should be except that you can't use your debit or credit card and the machines don't take cash. You have to purchase a card from them to use the machines. Just the card, you have to then put money on the card after you've purchased it.

AT&T want you to think of the connection they give you as that card. They then want to charge you per site or service beyond that. You pay for the priviledge of being their customer. It's the same racket gym's have been doing for decades with their "initiation" fees they claim they need to process your paperwork and somehow cost 100$+.

Want to be their customer? You have to pay for it. Then you get to pay for it some more.

Re:So what am I paying for? (4, Informative)

Ioldanach (88584) | about 4 months ago | (#46567679)

What exactly does my cable bill give me then, if not access to services on the web?

It gives you access to services on the web, but they have to pay their connectivity bill, too. If the company they chose doesn't have a good connection to your company, though, then your experience with that company will suffer.

In Netflix's case, they chose Cogent, and Cogent wants to take advantage of peering arrangements that presume data will cross their links to other providers in both directions equally, but they want to send far more data than they receive. But they don't want to pay the transit fees that would normally incur.

Movies, and all Internet traffic is paid for. (1)

rujasu (3450319) | about 4 months ago | (#46567121)

The consumer is paying for it. That's why we pay the bill, and that's how ISP's make billions. That's how it has always worked. AT&T apparently is cheesed off about not getting two bites of the apple.

How DARE you suggest... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567135)

that we DON'T double or triple charge for the same bits being transported. I laid these wires with my bare hands! Signing papers is hard work! My yacht won't pay for itself!

Re:How DARE you suggest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567321)

You nailed it. The Republicans love this crap because it makes even more money for them. They love to fuck over the public by refusing to offer Internet access. That's why here in Seattle we have no competition. For most people, they only have the choice of one provider since CenturyLink and Comcast that have the Republican-granted monopolies don't offer service in the entire city. I'm paying almost $70 per month for less than 1 Mbps, and I consider myself lucky since several of my neighbors are still on dial-up. That is the world the Republicans have created.

Hastings is arrogant... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567137)

for thinking the general public is so stupid as he.

Netflix pays for bandwidth and so do users.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567141)

I'm pretty sure I don't get free internet. And I'm also pretty sure that Netflix pays for it's internet service. The networks just want everyone to pay more, after using up free money from the government to build their infrastructure.

Re:Netflix pays for bandwidth and so do users.. (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 months ago | (#46567699)

Wait...when did they use ANY of that money to build thier infrastructure?

I already pay you AT&T (2)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 4 months ago | (#46567145)

When I pay you to provide me internet service I am paying you to do a service.

I don't pay you to provide me only the cheap internet, I pay you to provide me the entire internet. I don't pay Netflix to do that, I pay YOU to do that.

So YOU are the one that has to build the internet to provide me the service that YOU pro missed to supply me. No, you can't blackmail other people I do business with to help out. I have already paid you, you can't charge them for services I already paid for.

I'm already paying AT&T to deliver Netflix (3, Insightful)

kaplong! (688851) | about 4 months ago | (#46567147)

I'm already paying AT&T to deliver Netflix. Seems to me the carriers expect to be paid twice for the same service, once by the source (Netflix) and once by the destination (me).

They want to be paid three times! (1)

wbean (222522) | about 4 months ago | (#46567489)

They are already paid by the end user and by the distributors like Netflix, who pay for their bandwidth usage. What the carriers want is to be paid three times.

Re:I'm already paying AT&T to deliver Netflix (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#46567593)

you're paying for internet
if netflix's network provider is having problems it's not AT&T's problem

Nonsense (4, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about 4 months ago | (#46567151)

The user already pays for it, both to AT&T and Netflix.

Re:Nonsense (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 4 months ago | (#46567239)

This is the *entire* point of the net neutrality debate. Businesses want to reserve the right to gobble up subsidizes to build out our internet infrastructure, but want reject the responsibilities of being a common carrier and turn around and double charge both the content consumers *AND* producers.

Data is free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567159)

Bandwidth isn't

Re:Data is free (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 months ago | (#46567713)

Damn straight, at $68/month it sure ain't free.

So you best be giving me the fucking content I want, lest I take a baseball bat to your fat executive head.

Well, *someone* here sound arrogant, anyway... (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 4 months ago | (#46567165)

there is no free lunch, and there’s also no cost-free delivery of streaming movies. Someone has to pay that cost.

So the $80 a month I pay my ISP goes to what exactly? Oh, riiight... All those rural infrastructure improvements you've fought tooth and nail against. Got it.

Guess what, Jimmy? Without the likes of Netflix, we have no use for your "internet" that goes nowhere. Perhaps you could go read up on this idea on your Compuserve account.

Classify 'em as Common Carriers under Title II (5, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 4 months ago | (#46567167)

Cogent: Reclassify ISPs As Common Carriers Under Title II [dslreports.com]

In a bit of a clever public relations dance, Cogent has issued a press release stating that while the company refuses to pay companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast new peering tolls, they will pay the costs incurred by those companies to ensure there's adequate capacity at interconnection points. Cogent has been at the heart of more than a few debates over settlement-free peering, usually when the levels of traffic exchanged aren't equal. ...

Both ends get paid for already (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 4 months ago | (#46567171)

The customer pays for the client end. Netflix and other companies pay for the server end.

But the greedy pigs at AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc. want to gouge people by triple-dipping with fees for the middle.

Here we go... (5, Insightful)

MrSome (2587847) | about 4 months ago | (#46567177)

His comment shows exactly where these ISPs want to take the internet.

It's not about paying for an internet connection so you can get what you want... no no.

They want you to pay for an internet connection to get what they want to give you.

Arrogant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567181)

And what about the incredibly high fees the carriers and ISP's ALREADY charge the consumers while restricting our consumption of data? What's more arrogant? Netflix expecting to be able to deliver their content over pipes ALREADY PAID FOR by us consumers, or that carriers expect subsidies and fees from everyone else while providing no real value to the consumer for those highway-robbery fees charged by them and, in fact, provide less value year over year while continuing to increase rates and lower caps?

Hmm. Guess which side I'm on?

He has a point. It should be paid for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567187)

But isnt that what access fee to carriers like AT&T are for? Isnt that why they charge more for faster speeds and some charge more for the total data transmitted monthly?

I am not sure that either A) he has thought his argument through from a consumer perspective, or b) he has a clue

Globul Warming BULLSHIT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567205)

Cmon you pathetic socialist shitbirds. AGW is proven to be a sham, yet you still push it as a tool to steal more money.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_temperatures_dont_rise_the_hype_must#.Uy9waXK0EU4.twitter

Science? How does it work?

Evidence? How does it work?

Fuckwads.

Re:Globul Warming BULLSHIT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567291)

Also, and I know that I'm just stupid and emotional, but should the scientific community be beating down the door of the people who developed the 5% of the models that got it right? Since they were, you know, right?

Re:Globul Warming BULLSHIT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567429)

Anyone who believes in global warming should be arrested...

Fed Ex and Amazon (4, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 4 months ago | (#46567215)

Using the same logic, Fed Ex is slowing down my Amazon purchases over $25, because while Amazon pays for the shipping, I have refused to tip them.

Oh wait, no they are not, because Fed Ex is not run by greedy idiots trying to charge twice for one service.

FECK NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567227)

I'm paying for Internet access. Not specifically WWW, FTP or any other specific service that runs on it.

AT&T will likely regret this. (2)

Last_Available_Usern (756093) | about 4 months ago | (#46567235)

AT&T has quite the sack to go on record with this statement. I can only assume they hope other ISP's will get on board and try to somehow make this an acceptable thought process. A few points...

1) Where the consumer goes on the internet is their own business.
2) If the consumer is using more bandwidth then your business model allows, adjust your rates to the consumer to match.
3) You can't build a toll road between a gambler and the city of Vegas and then charge both the gambler and Vegas for their travel.

Re:AT&T will likely regret this. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567669)

No they won't. This government belongs to them not you. Best you remember that.

Double-dipping (2)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 4 months ago | (#46567237)

This is the problem with removing net neutrality: the service providers will be double-dipping. Each endpoint pays a service provider for a certain level of connection to THE ENTIRE INTERNET, and the only speed limitations should be the lowest level of upstream/downstream bandwidth paid for by one endpoint or another.

Without this "hands off" approach, service providers can say "pay us for a certain amount of speed accessing THE ENTIRE INTERNET" and then say to Netflix or others "pay us to be allowed to send to our customer at a certain level of speed, even though you've already paid another provider for the same thing." That means that the end customers ARE NOT receiving what they paid for unless the sender pays the tariff.

This should absolutely be fought tooth and nail, because in the end ALL costs fall upon the end consumer. I, for one, would be more than willing to set up something at my end that helps Netflix host its streams in a distributed fashion as is done with torrent downloads.

Re:Double-dipping (4, Informative)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 4 months ago | (#46567267)

Netflix streams from AWS, and offers ISPs a sort of staging platform where popular content can be cached within the ISP network, eliminating the peering issue. Many cable providers refuse to implement it.

Re:Double-dipping (1)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 4 months ago | (#46567283)

I was somewhat aware of this problem as well. That's why I would have no problem running a "Netflix daemon" on my machine that would use a relatively small portion of my bandwidth to cache Netflix data. If enough people did the same it would render the platform you describe entirely obsolete.

Re:Double-dipping (1)

kaiser423 (828989) | about 4 months ago | (#46567663)

Sign me up to act as a mini-CDN inside of the ISPs. Of course, barred by TOS but the ISP is complaining about the traffic being too asymmetric, so let's just even it out a bit....

Netflix should charge fees back to customers (5, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | about 4 months ago | (#46567251)

Netflix should charge back whatever fees they pay to Comcast back to their customers that view content via Comcast. This lets the customer see the true cost of their ISP.

Why should users of Google and other ISPs that don't charge fees to Netflix subsidize Comcast subscribers?

Re:Netflix should charge fees back to customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567411)

Netflix should charge Comcast for their customers to be able to gain access to Netflix - twice what Comcast wants to charge to carry it.

Then when Comcast doesn't pay, Netflix can state on their website that due to Comcast's illegal antics, Comcast customers cannot have access to Netflix and that they should contact the FCC to let them know about the Net Neutrality violations that Comcast is performing.

I agree! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567581)

As a Netflix customer who doesn't have to use AT&T, I strongly agree with your proposition.

Re:I agree! (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 4 months ago | (#46567641)

As a Netflix customer who doesn't have to use AT&T, I strongly agree with your proposition.

If these fees stick, you can count on AT&T jumping on board too.

Re:Netflix should charge fees back to customers (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 months ago | (#46567619)

since comcast is charging them less money than cogent did, they should get a discount

Landlines (3, Informative)

mepperpint (790350) | about 4 months ago | (#46567281)

I would like to introduce Mr. Cicconi to a device called a 'Telephone', particularly a variant colloquially termed a 'landline'. Historically 'telephone' companies, such as AT&T, would sell users a 'landline' to which they could connect a 'telephone'. These services included a basic connection charge as well as usage charges. In the event that a connection was made form one 'landline' to another, the party that initiated the session was charged for the usage of the session. This is exactly the treatment that Mr. Hastings is proposing.

In particular, I would like to note that while some providers charged users based upon usage, other providers allowed for a fixed cost plan where the subscriber paid a flat payment independent of their usage. These sorts of unlimited plans are exactly what AT&T, Comcast, etc. are selling as an ISP to their customers now, so they have no business trying to extract usage fees from Netflix and they have no business telling us that we're asking non-Netflix customers to subsidize the connections of Netflix customers. We've paid the fees that AT&T, Comcast, etc. demand for unlimited usage, so they need to provide it without whining about how they're not getting paid twice for the same service.

Data caps (1, Informative)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 4 months ago | (#46567297)

I believe it's about the data caps. Netflix wants them removed, AT&T basically says that users going over 150GB/month should foot the bill for infrastructure upgrades (as opposite to *all users* including those that do just e-mail and light web browsing). Seems fair to me.

Re:Data caps (1)

the_povinator (936048) | about 4 months ago | (#46567431)

This is not an argument about pricing mechanisms for Internet providers; I think we all agree that charging people more for more data is reasonable. The issue is extorting people like Netflix just because they can.

Re:Data caps (1)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 4 months ago | (#46567551)

Mhh. If it's not about data caps then it's about QoS and netflix wants some preferential treatment over other internet data publishers:

http://bgr.com/2014/02/25/verizon-att-netflix-streaming/

At which moment AT&T pointed out that business class costs more than economy.

Re:Data caps (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567495)

No, it isn't about data caps. If it were, he would be talking about data caps, you stupid cunt.

Re:Data caps (1)

fullmetal55 (698310) | about 4 months ago | (#46567661)

How do you get that from them demanding NETFLIX pay AT&T for the right to provide AT&T customers with their service?
It's not about AT&T customers footing the bill, it's about NETFLIX footing the bill... which is not right.

Speaking of which there is no free streaming being requested, the customers are ALREADY PAYING FOR IT... what difference is streaming 2GB of video vs downloading a 2 GB ISO?

yet they claim there is a difference. Even though I paid for that 2 GB ISO just as I paid Netflix for my monthly subscription. I'm not expecting Valve, Microsoft or any 3rd party to pay my ISP for the right for me to download a file. I expect them to pay THEIR ISP for the bandwidth I use to get the file from their servers to my computer.

Netflix has never claimed to want data caps removed, they want traffic throttling removed. Specifically they want ISPs to stop throttling traffic coming from them as they are doing now. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with Caps, and everything to do with throttling.

More Corporate Greedmeisters (5, Insightful)

sdinfoserv (1793266) | about 4 months ago | (#46567303)

As an American, I really get tired of billionaires arguing with millionaires about money.... All that happens is I get screwed.
- the US has fallen from 16th in 2012 to 31st in 2014 for broadband speed...
- pro sports tickets are almost unaffordable to the average person
- US healthcare is the most expensive per capita in the developed world and is ranked 33 for infant mortality

We need to get of this 'we;re great, capitalism solves everything' fox news mantra and look at what's actually happening.
Otherwise, at some point, there's going to be just 2 jobs left in the US. The guy who owns everything and they guy who cleans his toilet.

Re:More Corporate Greedmeisters (1)

MrSome (2587847) | about 4 months ago | (#46567395)

Cmon man... If it wasn't for capitalism, we'd all just sit around going, "I'm not going to try hard at anything, cause I can't get rich doing it."

Isn't that the pro-capitalist-free-market-deregulate-the-world chant?

Re:More Corporate Greedmeisters (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 4 months ago | (#46567401)

Your points are unrelated, and only 1 of the 3 examples you cite has anything to do with capitalism (even that is a stretch).

Re:More Corporate Greedmeisters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567525)

Ummm, you must have failed Econ 51? You better hit the books...

Re:More Corporate Greedmeisters (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46567683)

He didn't say capitalism was bad, he said
"We need to get of this 'we;re great, capitalism solves everything' fox news mantra and look at what's actually happening."

And he is correct.

Re:More Corporate Greedmeisters (0)

geek (5680) | about 4 months ago | (#46567535)

- the US has fallen from 16th in 2012 to 31st in 2014 for broadband speed...

No capitalism involved in this example because the telcos are government granted monopolies.

- pro sports tickets are almost unaffordable to the average person

Not capitalism because the team is granted a monopoly in their area by the city. This is good and bad. Good because it keeps teams from sprouting up stadiums all over the place. Bad because they can then charge whatever they want and sports morons will pay it.

- US healthcare is the most expensive per capita in the developed world and is ranked 33 for infant mortality

There is zero capitalism in medicine today because the FDA controls everything from drugs to medical devices and states grant monopolies to insurance providers. I can't by out of state insurance to compete with the fuckers that are ripping me off.

We need to get of this 'we;re great, capitalism solves everything' fox news mantra and look at what's actually happening.

No, YOU need to take your head out of your ass and stop blaming Fox News for all of your very real liberal inadequacy.

Re:More Corporate Greedmeisters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567587)

>pro sports tickets are almost unaffordable to the average person
if the price of the circuses gets too high, we'll have plebians rioting in the streets!

Re:More Corporate Greedmeisters (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 months ago | (#46567645)

Infant mortality is a horrid example. Every country considers infant mortality a little different.
In the US, anyone born with any signs of life, who then die counts toward that statistics. In some country's, premature babies that are born, but die within 7 days don't count. Russia being one of them.
When you normalize the data, are IMR is actually much lower.

IMR also doesn't take into account fetal deaths; which is a very important metric when using infant deaths as an indicator of country quality.

Backwards (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about 4 months ago | (#46567351)

Dear AT&T, Cox, Verizon, etc. You seem to be missing the point. It is YOUR CUSTOMERS who want net neutrality. I don't think I am alone in saying I want to be able to use the bandwidth you sell me, and to be able to use it as I please. And I'm not talking about running a server or doing anything illegal. You are so, so lucky that there is no viable competition to your local duopolies. I think it is time that we (the voting tax payers that make your companies possible) work on that. I don't think you will be happy with the result once we get angry enough as a group to take action. If you compare the state of home and business internet service in the US to countries like South Korea or Latvia, to name only two, our current system is clearly not working, so it is time to try something else. Go ahead, keep gouging us while you can, I guess, 'cause ya ain't gonna like what is further down the road.

AT&T Exec shoots self in mouth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567357)

Stupid arrogant fucktard, Netflix already *PAYS* for their internet connectivity, so of course they expect net neutrality. It's the law you fucking retard (fucktard).

So, it's arrogant to expect you to conform to the law? Really? How about this, let's just have the Federal Government nationalize everything you own since you cannot follow the rules, and fines do nothing to make you conform, so let's just put you out of business, and all the *officers* of the company can spend hard time in Levenworth for their own arrogance.

Yeah, that sounds like the proper punishment for AT&T's illegal antics.

Speaking of Arrogance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567359)

I suppose that in addition to paying for his groceries then he should pay the trucking company that delivers them to the store? I don't think anyone wants a free lunch. We want what we're already paying for without being charged twice.

Unethical (2)

hawkbat05 (1952326) | about 4 months ago | (#46567363)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here but the way I see it is Netflix already pays an ISP for its access to upload and download data and the end users already pay their ISP access to upload and download data. Both ends of the connection are already paid for, charging anything on top of this is basically charging for the same service twice. Netflix and the ISP's share the same customers, charging Netflix more means they'll pass the charges on to their customers this basically amounts to the ISP's increasing their prices/revenue by artificially restricting the supply.

For example if the ISP made a deal with Netflix that they can utilize X bandwidth at a rate of $Y/GB then Netflix is already paying for the data it sends. Putting another condition on that data and saying that you have to pay $Y+Z/GB if the data is providing something to customers is just a BS way of raising the price for businesses when it's not costing the ISP a dime more than any other data.

Re:Unethical (2)

guacamole (24270) | about 4 months ago | (#46567673)

AT&T doesn't want to charge Netflix extra for the same connectivity they get right now. What AT&T and other telecoms want to be able to do is to offer Netflix a higher priority (higher bandwidth and lower latency) service than what the rest of internet traffic gets for an additional fee. Netflix always refused this idea, and just hoped that telecoms upgrade their infrastructure which would benefit everyone at once.

I don't see a problem with telecoms charging Netflix extra for a higher priority service, but there is one big conflict of interest here. AT&T not only provides the pipes, they also provide the TV content with the U-Verse service. So AT&T is in direct competition with Netflix. Without net neutrality, AT&T is now in prime position to make sure that Netflix doesn't hurt their TV cable business. Either they charge Netflix so much that it stays uncompetitive, or perhaps Netflix stays competitive but AT&T will skim its profits through the fees anyways. Huge conflict of interest. FTC should look into this.

Yea... (1)

anmre (2956771) | about 4 months ago | (#46567425)

Senior Executive Vice President of Legislative Affairs thinks that some other company is not playing fair.

Apparently there is no free lunch, unless you're Ma Bell and have the resources to influence fucking Congress.

Start the supplanting already (4, Interesting)

Average (648) | about 4 months ago | (#46567477)

Google Fiber, meet Netflix. Netflix, Google Fiber. Amazon Web Services, you in? Apple?

It's time to start more overbuilding. Yes, it's expensive. Yes, Comcast or whoever already has the lines and could bump up to 300Mb plans for $50 at almost no additional cost (making them hard to compete against). But, until you build (and build at a much faster rate than the current Google Fiber projects), this is only going to get worse. You're currently dependent on not just a quasi-monopolist monster, but a wounded and irrational monster (because their TV profits are hurting). You have to bypass them.

It's ugly, I know. There will be communities with roadblocks (overbuilding is supposedly legal everywhere since the Telecom Act of 1996, but reality isn't so pretty). Sad, but true. We'll end up bypassing those communities, too. In every community that welcomes you, BUILD. Fiber is nice, but if you have to go DOCSIS/HFC (fiber to the block/neighborhood) with a better upstream split frequency because of cost, build that... coax is under-rated. But build. You can train high school students to lay coax. You can leverage massive discounts for buying 30 million identical ONUs. Build. Please. For the good of the country and the internet.

The consumer has already paid for the bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567479)

What they use it for is their business

This *is* how telecommunications works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567501)

Someone in the industry correct me if I am wrong, but my local POTS phone company does not charge the long-distance provider for access to their network.

The argument that other people are paying for my Netflix is absurd. If looked at that way, I am paying for their whatever they use... unless they don't use their connection in general, in which case they are paying for my last-mile service as well (notice: the last-mile provider doesn't want to change that).

What they are proposing is eliminating the internet and replacing it with a group of somewhat interconnected WANs operated by Verizon, TWC / Comcast, AT&T, etc)

AT&T Wants everyone to pay (2)

wolfguru (913659) | about 4 months ago | (#46567547)

As consumers, we pay for internet access to get the content we are interested in, not the content the ISP can make the most money delivering. If AT&T wants the content providers which are what drives consumers to subscribe to pay for the bandwidth it takes to provide than content, then AT&T should not be charging the consumer for delivering the content at the same time. It is quite simple, the telecom providers want to be paid twice for delivering the content; by the consumer and by the provider. It is purely greed and until the regulatory agencies are given the power to correct it, it will get worse for both provider and consumer.

Dear Comcast/AT&T/Verizon/Et al (3, Informative)

PortHaven (242123) | about 4 months ago | (#46567585)

I pay you $68/month for my broadband internet.

I don't give a damn about your whiny bitching, you deliver my content. If Netflix is the content I want, you !@#$ deliver it.

Playing these BS games is just you being greedy !@#$s.

The fact that my internet bill went from $35 --> $68 a month in a period of 7 years pretty much tells me you're just a bunch of greedy fucks.

So at this point, I am of the opinion we need to file a class action lawsuit against you for not delivering what we paid for.

And yes, your contract stating that said performance may not be available at all times, I don't think that will protect you. Because IMHO that's a good faith clause, that says hey sometimes shit happens. Sometimes bandwidth or connection will be down.

But in no way does that give you the excuse to have 0% uptime for providing service. And that's what you've been doing with your games.

AT&T - Fed wants their money back... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46567595)

Guess what AT&T, the Feds want their money back - you know, the millions they paid out for you to improve your infrastructure, those same millions that you gave your execs as bonuses while doing nothing to improve your infrastructure.

Yeah, those millions. While we're at it, they're going to revoke your licenses to be in the communications business, that includes cable, internet, cellular and phone service nationwide.. Why you ask? Well, it's due to your own arrogance and incompetence. You pissed away resources to improve your status, doubled and tripled the cost for communications and now have the temerity to ask content providers to pay you to deliver data that they've already paid to have delivered, that your customers have already paid you to deliver...

Sorry Charlie, but you can't do that. That's extortion and blackmail, that puts you (along with Comcast, Verizon, Time-Warner) up for Rico Act violations, please enjoy your time in prison and your loss of all infrastructure, patents and copyrights, you'll have nothing left.

The good of the people will prevail.

business as usual (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about 4 months ago | (#46567625)

why is everyone so surprised and outraged? this is business doing what business does: maximizing profits. if there's no law saying they can't, they will. they are actually doing what they are supposed to be doing. if they weren't doing this, their board of directors should be fired. if you want to be mad at something, be mad at your representatives for not passing a law.

No. (1)

apcullen (2504324) | about 4 months ago | (#46567687)

But it's not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked

It's not how you ever wanted the internet to have worked. There. Fixed that for you.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...