Beta
×

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!

Netflix CEO On Net Neutrality: Large ISPs Are the Problem

Soulskill posted about a month and a half ago | from the but-large-ISPs-are-so-well-liked dept.

Network 181

KindMind writes: At Wired, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has posted his take on net neutrality. He lays the problem at the feet of the large ISPs. Hastings says, "Consider this: A single fiber-optic strand the diameter of a human hair can carry 101.7 terabits of data per second, enough to support nearly every Netflix subscriber watching content in HD at the same time. And while technology has improved and capacity has increased, costs have continued to decline. A few more shelves of equipment might be needed in the buildings that house interconnection points, but broadband itself is as limitless as its uses. We'll never realize broadband's potential if large ISPs erect a pay-to-play system that charges both the sender and receiver for the same content. ... It's worth noting that Netflix connects directly with hundreds of ISPs globally, and 99 percent of those agreements don't involve access fees. It is only a handful of the largest U.S. ISPs, which control the majority of consumer connections, demanding this toll. Why would more profitable, larger companies charge for connections and capacity that smaller companies provide for free? Because they can."

cancel ×

181 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Big Data (5, Informative)

AlecDalek (3781731) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708327)

It's extortion plain and simple. It's never been about actual capacity. Big Data is trying to squeeze as much revenue out of us as the can.

Re:Big Data (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708439)

greed from level 3 and cogent
when they had the power they would charge what they wanted and disconnect free peering connections for breaking the contract. now that they don't, they whine about network neutrality when they used to charge for the same services they say the ISP's need to provide them for free

Re:Big Data (5, Informative)

rahvin112 (446269) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708607)

The lie you have bought into is that destination traffic is the same as transit traffic.

The whole point of peering agreements is to stop one provider from piggybacking on another transit providers network to reduce their costs. The agreements are structured so that to reach various end points they transit the traffic as closely as possible to the destination then hand it off to the hosting network rather than hand it off at the first available point and allow it transit the other networks system.

This whole arrangement falls flat on it's face when one of those transit providers is also the major destination route for millions of customers. ISPs that provide residential service always have unbalanced traffic arrangement because the customer almost always requests more data then they send. As long as L3 and Cogent are handing this destination traffic off to Verizon at the closest possible peering point for their subscribers then Verizon shouldn't be able to request the the traffic be balanced.

The problem is that unregulated market forces have allowed monopoly providers in local markets to combine with the very limited number of Tier 1 network operators resulting in the almost immediate abuse of monopoly by the Tier 1 portion of the network leveraging the monopoly side of the residential ISP business. There is rather simple solution to this problem. Bar any ISP that offers services directly to residential customers from owning or operating long haul national networks. If Verizon was forced to separate their Tier 1 transit business from their Residential ISP business (as in either divesting the assets or separating the company into two distinct companies) the problem would be solved almost immediately.

Businesses with monopolies will abuse them, that's the whole point of regulating free markets, because without that regulation you will end almost immediately with companies abusing market position and breaking the free market. Free markets don't stay free without regulation, particularly businesses with massive capital start up costs such as residential ISPs. Without regulation you end up with Verizon's Tier 1 network business leveraging the monopoly residential ISP traffic to extract rent from competing providers. This is a rent the market would not support without the monopoly or with regulation to prevent it's abuse.

Re:Big Data (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708631)

that's why there are CDN's and hundreds of companies use them and netflix refuses to pay a commercial CDN

these engineering and business problems were figured out 15 some years ago and everything worked OK more or less. youtube was a disruption but that was just the amount of traffic. netflix wants free services that other video providers pay for and have paid for many years now

Re:Big Data (5, Funny)

Jaye Mathisen (3791003) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708659)

The level of ignorance in the above post pleases me.

Re:Big Data (3, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708675)

"netflix refuses to pay a commercial CDN"

Their contract with movie makers probably stipulates that they maintain full and sole control of the data and allow no other company to touch it.

Re:Big Data (2)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708765)

Nah, Netflix used to use other CDNs. But then they got big enough that it was cheaper to build their own.

That's orthogonal to the issue that (in most people's opinion) no CDN should have to pay broadband ISPs.

Re:Big Data (5, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709477)

So?

I used to run a big adult site. We wanted servers closer to the customers for speed. We made enough that we didn't really care about the connection costs. We'd put up server farms around the world where it suited our customers best.

We owned every piece of equipment in our cabinet or cage (depending on the location). The provider equipment ended at the fiber they dropped to us, and the power outlets.

Netflix was hosted with Amazon [amazon.com] for a while. A couple years ago, they claimed to have started their own CDN [zdnet.com] .

Their own CDN site [netflix.com] talks about putting Netflix gear out for free. So they are basically saying they want the free ride. No one gets rack space, power, and connections for free. The right thing to do would be to lease the space like everyone else does.

But hey, they're loving to cry about being treated unfairly. They are the loudest ones about it. Honestly, other than speed complaints that are usually a fault, not a conspiracy, I don't know of anyone else talking about the same thing.

It is possible that the world is ganging up on Netflix. It happened to Cogent, more than once [google.com] . That was mostly they refused to pay on their contractual obligations.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47710041)

Their own CDN site [netflix.com] talks about putting Netflix gear out for free. So they are basically saying they want the free ride. No one gets rack space, power, and connections for free. The right thing to do would be to lease the space like everyone else does.

And exactly how much of Comcast's revenue is directly attributable to Netflix? I'm betting it's a lot more than 4U of space, a 5 amp power drop, and 10 gigs of connectivity, which for all intents and purposes is unlimited once you get onto the local net. Comcast was among those that bitched and moaned about how much transit Netflix was incurring, and Netflix offered a solution that dropped that transit cost to ZERO.

Re:Big Data (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708823)

Netflix said CDNs were not able to keep up with demand and all those peering issues, so Netflix decided to do it themselves. Commercial CDNs are great for small companies that can't afford to create contracts with every ISP out there. This is how those CDNs make money, by charging lots of relatively small data companies. Since these CDNs have SLAs to up hold, they are willing to pay ISPs to make sure their SLAs are met.

Modern SLAs are more about latency and jitter. Netflix doesn't care about this. Netflix also does not care about up time because their service can simply reroute to other data locations. All Netflix wants is bandwidth, and that's virtually free. No one pays for bandwidth anymore, they pay for SLAs or transit.

Re:Big Data (0, Troll)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709431)

you've no idea what you're talking about. This is a contract dispute between the ISPs, Netflix and the peers (mainly Level3) They all get this hairy, and there's always a lot of bullying going on. The difference here, and what's new is that Netflix has gone full retard, gotten the public and the government involved. If they continue, this will not turn out well for them, the ISPs or us.

You want government enforced net neutrality? Do you think they'll be neutral about porn? "Terrorist" activity? Anti-government sentiment? Once the governments fingers are in your business, they never, ever, come back out. Poison is the cure.

Re:Big Data (0)

sabri (584428) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708505)

It's extortion plain and simple

Please show me the gun that's being used.

Netflix does not have to pay ATT/Comcast/Verizon a single dime. All it needs to do is hire a few clever network engineers that are capable of a little bit of traffic engineering, and buy proper transit. Oh, and it would be nice if the US government would not make it so damned difficult for me to start a proper ISP.

--
Sabri
JNCIE #261
ECE-IPN #2

Re:Big Data (5, Insightful)

bistromath007 (1253428) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708539)

"Oh, and it would be nice if the US government would not make it so damned difficult for me to start a proper ISP."

You just mentioned the gun that's being used.

Re:Big Data (3, Interesting)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709275)

An interesting gun... Here in People-Who-Are-Actually-Professional-Network-EngineersVille, we'd simply accept that our current cheapest-available-transit-provider has shitty connectivity (really? Cogent? really really? Well done, Netflix. Not pinching any pennies, at all) and get a provider that didn't offer bargain bin connectivity and shitty routes to just about everyone. But hey. It's entirely the receiving network's fault.

Re:Big Data (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709511)

(really? Cogent? really really? Well done, Netflix. Not pinching any pennies, at all)

It seems most people either don't know about who's service is how good, or they ignore it.

But hey, they could have gone with Internap. Did they ever lay any of their own fiber, or are they still pushing traffic over the cheapest possible transit?

Re:Big Data (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708545)

all they have to do is contract with a CDN like everyone else does to host their content and like everyone has been doing for the last 15 years

Re:Big Data (1)

liquidpele (663430) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708739)

Why, of course! What IDIOTS they are to have never ever considered such things! You should probably start your own competitor, except like ebay and facebook but better. I hear you can hire people on craigslist.

Re:Big Data (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709285)

CDNs cost too much. It's hard to compete with 2 cents/megabit Cogent upstream pricing. Of course it will suck. That's why you're paying 2 cents/megabit for it. It's no damn wonder Netflix is pushing so damn hard for peering arrangements. They don't want to pay for bandwidth anymore. It's a sound business model. They're also being dishonest as all fuck about it, and trying to turn it into a net neutrality issue, when it isn't.

Re:Big Data (5, Insightful)

Wycliffe (116160) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709493)

They don't want to pay for bandwidth anymore.

What's so unreasonable about this? Netflix isn't wanting this for free, they are wanting peering agreements.
Basically, they are saying, let us run fiber directly to you so that:
      1) Our customers get a faster connection
      2) Your customers get a faster connection to us.
      3) Your customers are no longer bogging down your internet connection with traffic to us
      4) Your customers get a faster connections to the rest of the internet
      5) You don't have to buy bigger pipes to the rest of the internet therefore saving money.
etc...

It's a win/win for all involved. There is no reason money needs to be continually exchanged as it's now a private
lan between the two companies and I'm sure Netflix would gladly pay for the hardware.
The only reason they don't want to peer with netflix is because they feel like they own the customers and
are willing to hold their own customers hostage in the hopes that netflix will cave.
Netflix unfortunately is not critical enough to do the opposite. (i.e. peer with us or your customers
can't use netflix) as netflix actually has competition unlike the people they are trying to peer with.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47709983)

CDNs cost too much. It's hard to compete with 2 cents/megabit Cogent upstream pricing. Of course it will suck. That's why you're paying 2 cents/megabit for it. It's no damn wonder Netflix is pushing so damn hard for peering arrangements. They don't want to pay for bandwidth anymore. It's a sound business model. They're also being dishonest as all fuck about it, and trying to turn it into a net neutrality issue, when it isn't.

Why the hell would Netflix want to use a CDN when they're big enough and have their own CDN?

Netflix PAYS FOR BANDWIDTH all the figgin way to the doorstep to the major ISPs.

You're an idiot or a shill.

Re:Big Data (1)

lgw (121541) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709909)

They used Akamai for several years for the majority of their streaming traffic, but then they outgrew Akamai. Netflix is, what, 1/3 of all internet traffic now? They are the biggest CDN.

Non-subscriber's gun (0)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708773)

Please show me the gun that's being used.

The gun owned by a non-subscriber when a competitive ISP tries to pull copper or fiber across his land to reach a subscriber.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708825)

The guns being used are Netflix's customers on these networks that will cancel subscriptions en mass if the service is not available because they get basically cut off by the ISPs.

Re:Big Data (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47709915)

As well they should. The ISPs are being paid for the bandwidth. They're being paid by the subscriber for the data to be delivered. The ISPs are also being paid the Netflix's provider for bandwidth. I fail to see why the ISPs should expect to triple dip.

Re:Big Data (2)

Smerta (1855348) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708961)

I have heard rumors at least twice, from two different people that I trust (sorry for the "cloak and dagger" bullshit) that Hastings has investigated creating an ISP, but that the hurdles and bullshit threshold is just too high. That makes me sad. There is so much opportunity for innovation, so much potential to move away from the shitty 6Mbps "broadband" in most of America, but the Verizons & Comcasts buy their way out of the problem every time. And yes, the government (both parties, I'm looking at you) is complicit.

Re:Big Data (4, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709161)

Netflix does not have to pay ATT/Comcast/Verizon a single dime. All it needs to do is [...] buy proper transit

So they don't need to pay those three, but they must pay someone, for what amounts to transit to themselves. Transit was a concept when a small ISP bought from a large ISP to get the small number of users to The Internet across unequal networks. Peers are when the networks were more even.

It was always from the consumer point of view. Only recently did the concept of charging content for content transit. If my ISP is charging for content transit, I want my rebate/discount. They are getting paid twice for the same thing.

Re:Big Data (3, Interesting)

ultranova (717540) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709333)

Please show me the gun that's being used.

This delusional refusal to acknowledge that anything but outright violence could ever be coercive is the acid that's quickly dissolving whatever credibility capitalism still has left and exposing the grinning skull of feudalism beneath the mask of prosperity. I wonder what economic system will replace it, once people finally get tired of having structural flaws treated as unchangeable laws of nature or blamed on their victim's personal weaknesses?

The current climate is just like that which preceded the collapse of the Soviet Union: the prevailing myths are so much out of sync with reality people are running out of willing suspension of disbelief and losing their faith. No one believes anymore that hard work will be repaid with anything but layoffs, or that business success comes with a superior product rather than gaming the system, or that the rules are the same for everyone. The system has already lost its beating heart of credible mythology that can organize behaviour, it's just a matter of time before the necrosis of anarchy spreads everywhere.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47709999)

Sabri
JNCIE #261
ECE-IPN #2

If you're a JNCIE I'm a Star Lord.

Re:Big Data (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708685)

squeeze as much revenue out of us as the can.

And as a long time beer drinker, I can assure you that the can has squeezed considerable revenue out of me!

Re:Big Data (1)

Kethinov (636034) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709789)

Not that I disagree, but right now I'm just finding it funny how Hastings can complain about ISPs doing bad things while he remains conspicuously silent about Hollywood forcing draconian DRM into Netflix and, indirectly, into the HTML5 spec itself. Maybe the major ISPs should look into buying Hastings' silence too. It would help with their PR.

Re:Big Data (2)

lgw (121541) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709931)

Hastings, Netflix, and 99.999999% of all streaming customers give approximately 0 fucks about DRM. They pay Netflix, they see the content, there's simply no problem. And they're right. Technology makes life better by working. If it "just works", then it's fine. This ISP-throttling-Netflix BS, OTOH, is punishing customers until Netflix caves. That's not fine.

Re:Big Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47709959)

What's stopping Netflix from passing this on to those customers connected under that ISP? That way Netflix doesn't have the burden and those users will realise the true cost of the ISP they are using. I'm sure a lot of them are clueless about this but say a $.30 fee will make then ask WTF?

In Other News (4, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708335)

Cats on Dogs: Dogs are the problem.

Re:In Other News (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709551)

Well - if the content providers outright denied to provide content to ISPs that want money for the traffic it would hurt the content providers but it would hurt the ISPs more since the customers would look for other providers.

However as soon as a content provider starts to pay they will be part of the problem and not provide any solution.

Re:In Other News (1)

dryeo (100693) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709757)

Thing is the other providers are the same companies as own the ISPs.

I'm shocked! (5, Insightful)

Livius (318358) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708347)

In the absence of governments preventing them quasi-monopolies will act like quasi-monopolies?

Re:I'm shocked! (2)

dpilot (134227) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708485)

Now we need the quasi-obligatory response that this is really a government problem, and if government weren't in there mucking about with needless regulation the free market would address the problem and we'd all be in broadband utopia at reasonable prices.

Re:I'm shocked! (1, Interesting)

s.petry (762400) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708583)

Now we need the quasi-obligatory response that this is really a government problem, and if government weren't in there mucking about with needless regulation the free market would address the problem and we'd all be in broadband utopia at reasonable prices.

Perhaps I don't quite understand your wording and this is not double speak, but assuming you wrote correctly this is a Government problem. At least in the realm of what the Governments role is supposed to be in a Capitalist economy.

The majority of monopolization in the US is due exactly to monopolization by Government intervention. You may have to go deep to see it, and many people don't want to look that far, but it's all there. Start with Patent law and work your way out. Even if I could provide a better cheaper solution I could not implement it because I'd be stopped by the Government due to violating someone's patent.

And lets not bullshit each other, the majority of the millions of patents (I'd say 99.9%) approved every year do not deal with actual inventions, but ideas that someone now owns. Many of these are never implemented, because it would harm the patent owners market share and profit margins.

As I started with, it's possible that your statement is just worded in an obscure fashion and you would agree that this problem is due to the government.

Conduit lease (2)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708763)

One problem leading to broadband monopoly is city ownership of city roads [mises.org] . What alternative would you recommend? The only one I can think of is burying a few conduits in advance when performing other utility maintenance, and then leasing each individual conduit to an ISP to blow its own fiber or copper.

Re:Conduit lease (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709135)

Zoning for the infrastructure is the smallest part of the problem and the easiest to solve. It does however require thinking differently. To be very clear, this is not how things are, but how they should be in concept. Additional comments at the end of this post are not directed at you, please take no offense (I try to warn trolls away).

The Government is not supposed to "own" any land. They are supposed to work with the citizens to zone it properly, but the citizens own the land because the Government is the people (that's the theory at any rate). Since the Government does not own land, they can't lease or rent it out. They can only enforce the zoning that the people agree to.

If that theory was the practice, you and I could both own ISPs and lay our own cables/wires in the zones we are allotted. If the government gives us 1/2" to work in and share, the Government failed to zone properly. You and I should ensure that we don't muck with each others cables when laying things out, and the Government's job is to ensure I am liable if I damage your stuff and visa versa. "Leasing" us space on land they don't own is impossible.

This puts more accountability at a lower level, and that's how it should be. It reduces the footprint for potential corruption, and again that's how it should be.

I'm not anti-government by any means. I believe that some Government is required for society to function and thrive. Government should be a very minimal part of our lives in my opinion, but necessary.

Someone may comment and claim "but water", or "but power lines" and my answer will be the same. The problems we see today are due to both corruption and business not being held accountable for wrong doing. People want to claim that the Government is protecting them, but look at how many monopolies we have today. Look how many accidents there are with this alleged protection (Bruno CA). We have seen costs increase drastically on basic services because of monopolization, and QOS go down the toilet. The fact is that while Government has increased massively in the last decade everything in the private sector has gotten worse, so more government can not be the answer.

Re:Conduit lease (2)

mirix (1649853) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709269)

Dream on. What do you do when someone doesn't want you pulling cable across their property? (You won't be able to get the government to force them.)

It's besides the point really. Without government you'd be pulling the cable down a road made of mud and shit anyway.

Re:Conduit lease (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709555)

What alternative would you recommend? The only one I can think of is burying a few conduits in advance when performing other utility maintenance, and then leasing each individual conduit to an ISP to blow its own fiber or copper.

This isn't as crazy as it sounds. If the city owns the conduit, let's say a 6 inch pvc conduit and then rents it out at a nominal fee to anyone and
everyone who wants to send fiber down it. You could literally send thousands of strands of fiber down a single 6 inch conduit. Plenty of room
for competition for anyone who wants to try to compete. Now the city only has to maintain a simple piece of plastic pipe and can distribute the cost
with dozens of companies and each company gets to maintain their own fiber inside of this conduit.

Re:I'm shocked! (1)

dryeo (100693) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709799)

.Perhaps I don't quite understand your wording and this is not double speak, but assuming you wrote correctly this is a Government problem.

That's true, the government has been implicit in enclosing the commons since 1235 and without common land to drag cable/fiber across you can't just start an ISP.

The majority of monopolization in the US is due exactly to monopolization by Government intervention.

Perhaps we need to stop the government from giving the aristocracy (the rich) the right to own the land and infrastructure built on our land. Traditionally there was private land, eg your house and immediate property and their was common land for the use of all. Government has removed the common part and given it to the lords and now naturally those who own the commons want to profit off it.

Re:I'm shocked! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708615)

But government is the problem, dumb-asses. The reason you only have one broadband provider in many areas is because local governments signed contracts with these corporations that allows them exclusive usage of communications infrastructure, state governments passed laws that prevent local municipalities from building their own infrastructure, and the federal government shields them from any sort of federal regulation through the FCC which now works for said companies due to regulatory capture.

Re:I'm shocked! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708749)

Also the exorbitant cost of laying the last mile of copper/fiber making it extremely expensive to fight the incumbent ISP

Re:I'm shocked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47709985)

What you're ignoring with your implication that government is the problem is that the only solution if you're correct is no government at all, not even a weak one. You could take away the right to enter into exclusive contracts, but cities could still refuse to permit a new street digging every time an ISP wanted to start up. Would you take away a city's right to control when the roads are dug up and to what standards they are repaired afterward?

The real problem is unregulated business. Government is only their agent because it's the easiest agent. Removing governmental powers doesn't remove monopoly power, it just makes the exercise of monopoly power seek other avenues. We saw this in the 19th century when corporations hired mercenaries to attack union sympathizers and engage in all out war against communities.

You can take your dreams of Somalia in the United States and smoke'em. We don't want it.

Re:I'm shocked! (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47710095)

Yes, comrade; the only options are overwhelming, crushingly corrupt government (what we have now and you want more of apparently) and no government.

If only there was some form of limited government; a government with strictly limited powers at different levels. We could have a list of things that the head government (federal?) could do and so on and so forth down to the local level. Nah, that'd never work, get back to licking those boots.

And to answer your dumb ass question; the people of the city should decide if the streets get dug up, and who is offered the contract, not some statist managerial scum like yourself.

Re:I'm shocked! (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709871)

I guess you've never personally worked on a community broadband project and learned what's involved with getting pole space (in the supposed 'public' right of way).

Give it a try - you'll learn something!

people still watch TV (-1)

alen (225700) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708381)

i bet even coax cable can support everyone watching netflix at the same time, but a large part of the bandwidth is still dedicated to old style TV. Sit Coms, sports, reality shows, etc. and most people still watch regular old TV.

most netflix customers use it as a secondary service. it's the tiny percentage of cord cutters who are about as annoying as NYC bike riders who think everything should revolve around them

Opposition to a penny more per year (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708843)

most netflix customers use it as a secondary service. it's the tiny percentage of cord cutters

Among some members of my family, I've detected a Grover Norquist mentality [wikipedia.org] against any increase in entertainment spending. To afford another $120 per year recurring fee, they'd have to cut out something else. Cord cutters in countries where over-the-top video on demand (OTT VOD) services such as Hulu and Netflix are available recognize that everything but the "festering pile of social ills" that is televised sports [cracked.com] is available on OTT VOD.

Re:people still watch TV (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709177)

Old style TV takes about as much as a single Netflix stream. So for every channel canceled, they can support one more Netflix user. That doesn't sound like the channels are such a waste.

Poor argument (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708385)

While I agree that ISPs are a big part of the problem, the downside isn't that we don't get our utopia, the downside is that other countries are able to provide a more competitive near-utopia, locking us out of a leadership position on development of the Internet. That's the real fail, here. If we fail to lead, there will be others that are all too happy to fill our shoes and take our money to do so.

No, I didn't RTFA.

Re:Poor argument (4, Insightful)

StormReaver (59959) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709361)

While I agree that ISPs are a big part of the problem, the downside isn't that we don't get our utopia....

A bigger part of the problem lies with people who believe that paying a fair price for service, and then receiving the paid-for service, is some form of utopia rather than a requirement.

No, I didn't RTFA.

That was self-evident.

What it spells... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708401)

It is spelled g-r-e-e-d. The only way to legitimately get back at the large ISPs is to buy shares from ones that pay hefty dividends (e.g., Verizon, AT&T).

Netflix should become an ISP and compete with them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708421)

And i will be their first customer!

Re:Netflix should become an ISP and compete with t (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708475)

If media companies can become ISPs, why couldn't Netflix also become one?

Re:Netflix should become an ISP and compete with t (1)

alen (225700) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708493)

they can, just borrow $100 billion to build out a network, negotiate with every redneck and podunk town to get franchise rights to run their cables and spend more money for marketing to get customers

Re:Netflix should become an ISP and compete with t (3)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708565)

they can, just borrow $100 billion to build out a network, negotiate with every redneck and podunk town to get franchise rights to run their cables and spend more money for marketing to get customers

Or, pull a Google, and do one town at a time and watch the incumbents suddenly offer free peerage and lower rates.

Re:Netflix should become an ISP and compete with t (4, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708639)

Or, pull a Google, and do one town at a time and watch the incumbents suddenly offer free peerage and lower rates.

"One town at a time" was pretty much how the incumbents got where they are. Yes, they bought out other companies to get to the size they are, but those companies did it one town at a time, for the most part. Nobody fell off the turnip truck with billions of dollars putting cable in a hundred cities at the same time. It's like nobody comes out of the womb weighing 600 pounds, it takes a lot of time to get there, and THEN you get your own TV show.

Anyone who thinks they'll get to be the next Comcast or TWC by a massive multi-city buildout is, well, I'd rather they not clutter up the neighborhood with their poorly planned systems. They'll only be in the way of, and muddy the waters for, the next real competitor.

Says the guy who wants to charge you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708459)

He's just mad the ISPs control access to his product. It's not like Netflix is out to give your their product for free....

Muslim dogs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708461)

Who cares about this? Islam intends on making you bow to Allah with a gun in your back right before they behead you.

Re:Muslim dogs (1)

Skidborg (1585365) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709279)

People who live in a civilized nation where that is far from the population's most pressing concern.

A little naive perhaps? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708495)

TFA sounds a little naive.

While I'm quite certain there's that "because they can" factor in there, and I've seen it first-hand when working for companies, it's just not as simple as how much data tan go through the fiber. There's lots of hidden costs that have nothing to do with interconnect bandwidth, like switching gear, power used by said gear, maintenance costs related to that, including salaries for qualified technicians spread all over the coverage area available to handle issues and outages (not that their crew is anywhere near "capable", but salaries are salaries even if they were monkeys).

So, yeah, they can. And there's probably a lot they do only because they can. But it's not that a single fiber would handle all the traffic, with zero cost. Bigger ISPs have bigger costs. They have more widespread coverage, which means their technicians have to travel more (or have to be more), they also need more switching gear, relays to amplify (well, re-create) the signal (which you do need every few km even with oh-so-state-of-the-art fiber, and they cost a crapload of money), routing, which is not the same for a huge ISP as it is for a town-wide ISP.

Scale doesn't necessarily decrease costs, and the nature of video streaming is that it's not perfectly balanced load either. With those ISPs, you need different co-location agreements.

Should they charge for it? Hell no! They should pay! Better netflix = more users, they're just too dumb to notice.

The gist of the matter is, that big ISPs are usually also big telecoms, and telecoms are used to operating with huge profit margins. Anything that pushes them into, not read, but less than obscene profit, they fight. Because they can. They don't really need to provide good service, their quasi-monopoly on the telecom side guarantees they won't die if suddenly people decide to switch ISPs (they won't switch cell companies as easily, because they probably all collude to fix prices - just speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised).

So, big ISPs need governmental incentives to do what small ISPs must do due to natural market forces (competition).

What does this tell you?

Telecoms shouldn't be allowed to act as ISPs. It creates market imbalance.

Generalize it a bit further: companies should be specialized. So they actually have to be good at what they do to prevail.

Re:A little naive perhaps? (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708519)

he's doing the same thing as uber, airbnb and lyft
run a business without paying the traditional costs in the field and socialize your costs. in this case he wants every internet customer to pay for his bandwidth whether they use netflix or not. just like cable TV channels make you buy every channel

Re:A little naive perhaps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708589)

Ehm... (anonymous coward here)... notice that I meant that the ISPs should pay. It's them who benefit from a better interconnect to netflix. Netflix too, sure, but what netflix wants isn't a bigger pipe, but the ability to put servers closer to the last mile. They pay for the servers (as usual), but they shouldn't pay for the traffic, since it's a net win to the ISP anyway.

Re:A little naive perhaps? (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708657)

except netflix wants everyone to host their servers for free and pay the costs of doing so

ISP's are just going after some of the tier 1 backbone market. no reason why they can't

Re:A little naive perhaps? (4, Informative)

Bengie (1121981) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708861)

Netflix's Beast box full of SSDs that can handle 50k customers streaming HD have a peak load of 150watts and takes up 2Us. 20gb of bandwidth for the cost of $20 of electricity per month is not a bad deal. Maybe the ISP would be more happy paying $40k/month of dedicated bandwidth from Level 3.

Re:A little naive perhaps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708863)

Well, it doesn't matter if Netflix offered to pay for the servers or not. I recall they did, but assume they didn't. Still, the ISP saves far more than what it costs to maintain a few caching servers, so it's still a net win for the ISP, especially if Netflix traffic is as significant as they claim (which I don't doubt).

So much so, that peering is a very common thing between heavy traffic endpoints (talking from personal experience in publicity here).

Re:A little naive perhaps? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708785)

run a business without paying the traditional costs in the field and socialize your costs. in this case he wants every internet customer to pay for his bandwidth whether they use netflix or not.

ISPs chose their flat-rate business model; Netflix didn't force it on them. If that business model no longer works, ISPs should switch to a different one.

Re:A little naive perhaps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47709069)

Troll for large ISP! Troll for large ISP! (Just in case nobody noticed)...go away you have no freakin' clue.

Re:A little naive perhaps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47709113)

I know you end up blaming the ISP's but none of your arguments make sense....SIZE DOES MATTER! It's the ONLY thing that matters in this conversation...size of the 'pipe' that is. None of what you said applies more to fibre than it does to copper. I'm quite sure these large ISPs/Telecoms have the 'calculations down pat' as to how much it costs to service any given customer...there will be a baseline cost no matter the technology...but here's the thing, bigger pipes mean FEWER lines to run not more, fewer interconnects, fewer switches etc., etc.

Bloat matters to, but that's what 'downsizing' is all about...see for instance MS recently. But when's the last time you saw a telecom company 'downsize' other than when they merge...and why is that? Because they know they can service the same total amount of customers with fewer employees than 2 large companies can. These guys have this 'shit down pat'.

What's worse though is that they are trying to get the rest of us to believe this is 'hard', costly, etc...it's not...or at least no more so than copper...it's all about the laws NOT the technology at this point.

moderating (1)

JeffElkins (977243) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708507)

To remove accidental moderation.

I can already hear the rebuttal by big ISP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708577)

Netflix and American consumers, clearly don't 'understand' interconnects and peering agreements we have to agree to.
FCC regulation doesn't account fo rblah blah blah ...
Market forces and competition are causing buld out time tables and costs to ...

If there was EVER a time, for the FCC and US politicians to show it isn't 100% bought and paid for by Corporate America, and the media cartel specifically, this is it. Sadly, I fear they do have THAT much control within Government.

Is it still cynical, even if you're right?

Well, here's the solution... (0)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708597)

Hastings says, "Consider this: A single fiber-optic strand the diameter of a human hair can carry 101.7 terabits of data per second, enough to support nearly every Netflix subscriber watching content in HD at the same time.

Now, if we could only get every Netflix sub to connect to the same human-hair sized fiber, the problem would be solved. Netflix could even own that fiber and control their own destiny.

Of course, there might be other content providers who are then clamoring for legislative assistance to force Netflix to carry their content on the Netflix fiber...

Re:Well, here's the solution... (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709229)

Direct point-to-point links have no demands for other content. It's when you buy from an ISP who determines that they will not deliver part of the Internet they don't like. I've bought leased fibre services in many places, and nobdy has ever asked to put their content on it. The users have already paid someone for access to that Netflix stream, but that access provider is trying to extort additional profit from content providers.

Re:Well, here's the solution... (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709437)

Direct point-to-point links have no demands for other content.

Netflix putting all subs on one fiber is not a "direct point to point link", any more than all of comcast's subs in a community being on one fiber is. If Netflix is running the backbone and doing the content they are, for all intents and purposes, acting as an ISP.

Re:Well, here's the solution... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709591)

If Netflix is running the backbone and doing the content they are, for all intents and purposes, acting as an ISP.

Why is the "I" in there? If Netflix is doing it, then it's a private network, not unlike an '80s frame relay network (just faster). They aren't providing "Internet". They are providing a video service.

By your logic, a cable TV network (with no data services) is an ISP because they are running a backbone and providing content.

Play hardball (3, Informative)

felixrising (1135205) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708691)

John Oliver really said it well, explained the nature of the shake-down... these ISPs are simply being greedy and not realising that providing a quality fast connection to their subscribers is in their own interest, providing poor quality connection to services that other ISPs are providing good quality to only serves to hurt their reputation and good will with their own subscribers. If was Netflix or any of these content providers that are providing great content for the ISPs, I'd play hardball.. it'd hurt their own bottom line for a while, but if they banded together with other content providers to enforce it, they would soon have the ISPs begging.... So what would I do? Notify customers of these big ISPs that within two months they will no longer be providing the full service via that ISP.. sit back and watch the ISPs customers leave in droves.. of course, this is just turning the tables on the ISP net neutrality rules, but when the ISPs are already playing hardball and have their own man in charge of the FCC, then it's time to give them a taste of their own medicine.

Re:Play hardball (1)

the_bard17 (626642) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708833)

That'd be true if we all had choice.

'Round here (Upstate NY), we're realistically limited to two ISPs. Verizon and Time Warner. Most of the area doesn't have access to FIOS, either... I'm talking about Verizon DSL. Neither seems to be looking to change the status quo. Sure, I'd be pissed if one or both were dropped by Netflix, but I can't switch to anyone else.

Vote with your feet, literally (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708879)

Sure, I'd be pissed if [TWC or Verizon DSL] or both were dropped by Netflix, but I can't switch to anyone else.

If the Internet connection where you live has become unusable, you could always switch to somewhere else. Compare this: I imagine a lot of people would like to move to a rural area, but they like the Internet more than they like the country.

Re:Vote with your feet, literally (1)

dbc (135354) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708973)

Oddly, my cabin in the mountains has a fiber going through my meadow where bears are regularly seen, yet here in the middle of Sili Valley I can get either indifferent DSL speeds or unreliable cable connectivity supplied by idiots. Of course, I admit that having "fiber to the bear turd" is largely a matter of have a lucky rural location positioned between wireless operators that will pay for a carrier-grade fiber connection.

Sadly, moving to where you can get decent internet connectivity is not an option for most people -- I believe economists call that an "externality".

Re:Vote with your feet, literally (1)

dballanc (100332) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709747)

I recently bought a saw off a fellow via an online ad - about 20 miles of travel from the 'big' town of 25,000 to a house in pretty much the middle of nowhere and accessible only by several miles on gravel roads. Lots of cows, hayfields, dense forest. Out of curiousity I ask him about the internet options - he was on 10mb dsl, as are most of the other people in that area. Similar story from friends who live out in the country about 8 miles from a town of a few thousand people in a different direction. There seems to be at least a few rural options these days, atleast here in Missouri. Don't write rural off completely... atleast due to internet...

Re:Play hardball (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708845)

John Oliver really said it well, explained the nature of the shake-down... these ISPs are simply being greedy and not realising that providing a quality fast connection to their subscribers is in their own interest, providing poor quality connection to services that other ISPs are providing good quality to only serves to hurt their reputation and good will with their own subscribers. If was Netflix or any of these content providers that are providing great content for the ISPs, I'd play hardball.. it'd hurt their own bottom line for a while...

Uh, their bottom line? Have you not noticed that these companies are making not millions, but billions these days? You're going to get customers to leave in "droves"? Oh, that's a laugh. There's still "droves" of customers left. Think they care? No, not really. They still made a few hundred million this quarter.

Arrogance is the real problem with the companies that should have never been allowed to grow to the size they are today. We don't call them a monopoly because we're big fans of old board games. Threaten to leave? Meh, means nothing to them. They've bought and sold more customers than you could ever dream of amassing.

Go ahead. Try it. Then sit back and watch them laugh at your failed attempts to manipulate one of the most powerful entities on the planet.

Re:Play hardball (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708887)

In many cases, these big ISPs are also big Cable TV providers. Netflix (and Internet Video in general) threatens their Cable TV model and so must be dealt with. They can't simply block all access to Netflix. The FCC might be weak willed but it still has enough of a spine that it wouldn't ignore this. (Not to mention the lawsuits and bad press that the company would get.) Since they can't block it, they attack it with a two pronged attack:

1) Institute data caps and overage fees. This means there is no a hard limit on how much Internet Video you can watch. They might be forced to set them high at first, but that also means that they can leave them where they are and lock out HD streams. (Note that Time Warner Cable wanted to make a 5GB cap but was forced to back out of that plan due to bad press and customer outcry.) In the case of overage fees, this will direct money to the cable companies' pockets in case users still try to watch Internet TV. It also makes Internet TV more expensive so that Cable TV will look like a better deal by comparison (even though that "more expensive" is the result of the cable companies' overage fees).

2) Make fast-slow lanes. If Netflix doesn't pay up, their site will be slow and nearly unusable. Then the cable companies can tout how you won't need to wait for their video services to buffer. If Netflix does pay up then the cable companies make money off of Netflix. This will also force Netflix to raise their rates (to cover this new cost of doing business) resulting in a more favorable - to the cable companies - Netflix/Cable TV price comparison. (Just like the overage fees.)

So this isn't just the big ISPs not wanting to pay to upgrade their networks. It's also them protecting their old business models against these newfangled competitors.

Re:Play hardball (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a month and a half ago | (#47710099)

Overage fees are nothing but pure evil. They did use to offer capped DSL and my cell phone data usage is still capped, I ran into it this summer as I was watching videos at the cabin but it doesn't have overage. What happens is at 80% I got a text that I'm getting close on my cap. At 100% I got a new text saying my quota is now up, I'll now either get very, very slow internet connection the rest of the month like enough to check email and barely browse the web, or I can pay up for additional quotas. Back when they offered capped DSL it was the same there.

The biggest benefit to a flat rate connection is that it's flat rate. And particularly today when you got phones and tablets and laptops and consoles and smart TVs and whatnot that all like to go online keeping track of your aggregate data usage is not easy. Overage fees are like the credit card model offering you 30 days free credit. How to do they make money off giving people free money? Because people slip up, get unplanned or unwanted expenses and then they nail the suckers. It's just begging to exploit the people who think they can save a few bucks a month.

Re:Play hardball (4, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708917)

Notify customers of these big ISPs that within two months they will no longer be providing the full service via that ISP.. sit back and watch the ISPs customers leave in droves.. of course, this is just turning the tables on the ISP net neutrality rules, but when the ISPs are already playing hardball and have their own man in charge of the FCC, then it's time to give them a taste of their own medicine.

You forget who Comcast owns. They wholly own NBC and Universal Studios, two major sources of Netflix content. And they're already screwing with the availability of NBCUniversal content on Netflix. If Netflix tries to play hardball, a whole boatload of shows and movies will just vanish out of their catalog.

A media company that owns the last mile is an abomination, and the FTC should do something about it.

He who owns the keys, owns the castle (1)

p51d007 (656414) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708703)

Same with the overpriced "contract" plans for wireless phones (at least in the USA, not familiar with anywhere else). They show a retail price at the store, for the phone, then the "bargain" 299 price...of course with a 2 year contract. Then, that plan that you need, minus all the stupid taxes, runs over 100 dollars, and then by the time you add the taxes, it's around 140 dollars per month, x 24 months and you end up paying way more than if you bought the phone, full retail, online somewhere like Amazon, e-bay, swappa and went with an MVNO on a month to month plan. Heck, I did that two years ago and save over 80 bucks a month than being on contract. When phones got popular, they overcharged for minutes, then, they dropped that to "unlimited" minutes, but do to the popularity of texting, they overcharge for texting, even though it DOESN'T COST THE CARRIER ANYTHING because the texting is piggybacked on the carrier signal. Now, they overcharge for data. With only 2 "big" carriers and a couple smaller ones, t-mobile, sprint...they pretty much can get away with anything they want. It's taken 30 years after the breakup of "Ma-Bell" for the mother ship to put itself back together, perhaps it needs to be spanked again, but, with the amount of money the carriers throw at the political idiots in DC, don't look for it to change anytime soon, sadly.

I live very rural (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708761)

Our telco only has 5mbit service so i pay a whole pile of extra money for 12mbit radio service, but they are trenching fiber to my house for about the same as i pay (130/mo). its not a great price, but my town has like 1000 people so its not like we're getting 100mbit docsis any time soon. On my connection i get my stated 12mbit virtually 100% of the time. netflix works great, and i used to work for AT&T, and comcast. They dont need to trench fiber or coax or string a twisted pair local loop - thats already done. and they still demand additional charges to do what their company's job is? thats totes f'd. shipping a package in normal space is billed to either the shipper or the receiver. not to both. (domestic, no duty or brokerage fees)

Because they can? Wrong. (0)

geekmux (1040042) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708783)

"Why would more profitable, larger companies charge for connections and capacity that smaller companies provide for free? Because they can."

Uh, because they "can" is not exactly the reason.

The only reason they "can" is because people are willing to pay it. At the end of the day, it is still a business that relies on revenue from customers.

And from the US perspective, we might as well re-label this argument Netflix Neutrality, since that's all I keep hearing and seeing out of every argument related to this. Apparently there are two kinds of data streams left in the world. Netflix, and all the other shit.

There are also two kinds of ISPs left in the world too. The greedy asshats running the ones in the US, and everyone else.

If not Netflix, torrents. be happy. (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708927)

If not for Netflix taking on the fight, the ISPs would be attacking torrents as a huge problem along with propaganda ("OMG, think of the children!" or "OMG, terrorists use torrents!")

Torrents do not have protection like Netflix does. YouTube might also be a target, again be happy that torrents are not the #1 threat to ISP screwing their customers. When they were the #1 user, data caps, QoS games, tampering with packets and other schemes were developing. Thank you Netflix and YouTube for slowing the assault; ISPs had to give in a little due to customer demand for Netflix.

Re:If not Netflix, torrents. be happy. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709201)

If not for Netflix taking on the fight, the ISPs would be attacking torrents as a huge problem along with propaganda ("OMG, think of the children!" or "OMG, terrorists use torrents!")

Torrents do not have protection like Netflix does. YouTube might also be a target, again be happy that torrents are not the #1 threat to ISP screwing their customers. When they were the #1 user, data caps, QoS games, tampering with packets and other schemes were developing. Thank you Netflix and YouTube for slowing the assault; ISPs had to give in a little due to customer demand for Netflix.

The only ISPs that are "screwing" their customers in this case are the ones in the US. The rest of the world doesn't seem to have an issue with Net(flix) Neutrality, and it's most likely because they have the infrastructure to handle it. The US Government gave the LECs money to do exactly that years ago; build out infrastructure. $200 fucking billion to be exact. That money was squandered and paid out in executive bonuses instead (as if we should be shocked).

US-based ISPs want to charge per content because they have rich internet addicts as customers who are apathetic and ignorant of how this works in the rest of the world. If US customers refused to put up with that, or remembered they paid for it already, ISPs would be forced to accomodate. Addicts don't tend to give up easily. Arrogant monopolies know this. That is why they are arrogant.

And torrents? Please. ISPs could have used that terrorist excuse years ago to get those quashed. They spent their time instead getting in bed with the MAFIAA and attacking their customers in a different, more profitable way.

Sorry, but given their history, It shouldn't take a Netflix to make them finally get off the shitter. They still owe us for the infrastructure that would make this issue go away. Now, this "issue" is seen as nothing more than another revenue stream, which ISPs will latch onto like a blood-sucking leech with the tenacity of a pit bull and not let go until they have it.

The Solution: project-byzantium.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708811)

http://project-byzantium.org/ [project-byzantium.org]

Re:The Solution: project-byzantium.org (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708919)

How would a wireless mesh network reach from, say, Arizona to Indiana?

When I started (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47708923)

When I started using the internet in 1993+-, it was a 'free' service, you simply paid for the line and the modems. You could arrange with a university to have your ISDN/T1 whatever connected to their system and the only fee was from the phone company. You also had the right then you share your internet with whoever you liked, I relayed email and usenet to all others in my community. Wouldn't it be interesting if that was legal these days? One customer in an apt building or on a block could buy the direct connection and relay with anyone within range, or run cables over private property etc.. .

Terms and conditions of most every ISP I've seen/used in the last decade or so forbid any sharing at the cost of disconnection... I'd like them not to be ABLE to forbid it. neighbors could chip-in together etc etc..

Business class (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708943)

Terms and conditions of most every ISP I've seen/used in the last decade or so forbid any sharing at the cost of disconnection

I'd imagine that business-class plans are less likely to forbid this. A hotel, for instance, needs to share a connection with its guests.

Utter BS from Reed Hastings & Netflix (0)

musixman (1713146) | about a month and a half ago | (#47708947)

Reed & Netflix is FOS when it comes to Net Neutrality, when you truly don't believe in something, you don't compromise your values for cash like they did with Comcast.

http://online.wsj.com/news/art... [wsj.com]

How can we have a world free from NN, when one of the worlds biggest websites by bandwidth usage, pay's off an ISP for "premium" access to their network.

How about you practice what you preach Netflix, instead of whining when the cost is to much for your shareholders to bear. Pussy's.

Terrible argument. Try this instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47709039)

A single strand of fiber can provide permanent, full speed, 100mbit internet access for a QUARTER MILLION perma seeding torrenting people. It could easily provide comparable service to a million typical consumers. A length of cable thinner than my pinky finger can provide this service for THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Yet for some reason, the average consumer gets less than a third of that speed, and even worse at "peak load".

The concept of peak internet load in general is a joke. The reason is not that high speed internet can't be done. The problem is that it WON'T be done.

Size Matters! (not 'speed') (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47709049)

I'll continue to try to help change this conversation by focusing on the proper metric...there is NO 'internet fast lane'...people need to get over that 'meme'...all packets travel roughly the same speed...the problem isn't speed (while not unless someone wants to tackle the 'speed of light issue') it's size...1 fibre-optic strand can carry THAT much data? And I'm stuck with copper...nice...enough of this crap already. I'm tired of having my 'car' blocked in my driveway because of other cars in my way (for those not understanding this is a metaphor...think of the 'highway'/road as someone blocking you because there aren't enough lanes...not because someone is traveling faster than someone else)...fibre to the home...let's just get this party started in earnest already!

Duh (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709173)

At Wired, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has posted his take on net neutrality. He lays the problem at the feet of the large ISPs.

File this one under, "No Shit Sherlock".

Consider This... (1)

MathAndLove (3791115) | about a month and a half ago | (#47709563)

While it is true that a single fiber could theoretically server all 44 million Netflix customers, consider the cost of splitting that traffic out to them...even if they were sitting on top of each other in a skyscraper capable of housing 44 million people. Then consider the end to end cost of distributing that traffic to reality.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?