derFunkstein wrote:Just more fuel for the fire
derFunkstein wrote:As long as Comcast has TV subs to protect, they'll continue to groom how bandwidth is used to their advantage.
derfunkstein wrote:As long as Comcast has TV subs to protect, they'll continue to groom how bandwidth is used to their advantage.
The Egg wrote:If that is the point of contention, then lets take a step back from all the technicalities, and just look at it from a purely logical standpoint. Logically, I have a very hard time believing that Netflix would intentionally do something which results in lower performance of their own service. If the average user starts noticing poor performance, it's a 50/50 coin toss on whether they're going to blame the ISP or Netflix themselves. Those are really bad numbers, and they don't play to Netflix's favor.
ArsTechnica wrote:Verizon could be throttling Netflix and Amazon, but there’s no actual evidence of it
Generic Newspaper Title wrote:Man could have raped child, but judge exonerates him
The Egg wrote:If you take an ISP like Comcast for example, they're an absolute monstrosity with tens of millions of customers, and represent a huge chunk of Netflix subscribers. Do you really think that Netflix would gamble with that number of subscribers, and just keep their fingers crossed and hope that people blame the ISP? Not only would half of the subscribers NOT blame the ISP, but many of them don't even have an alternative because Comcast has a monopoly over large swaths of the US. Even of those who blame the ISP and have an alternative (you're talking about an increasingly small number), many causal users may simply stop using Netflix.
Glorious wrote:We're not saying that Netflix *IS* doing that, mind you, just that's it's really hard to tell. That's the entire point of the Ars Technica article that Ryu cited.
Glorious wrote:Look, as I said, it's not that we are saying that this *is* happening. I don't actually think that netflix is doing that.
Glorious wrote:It isn't a 50/50 coin toss. Not even remotely. Virtually everyone on the internet, other than apparently Ryu and me, automatically blame Comcast.
superjawes wrote:Netflix might be pushing OpenConnect, but again, this is more of a solution to something that isn't technically their problem, and the result helps everyone involved (not just Netflix).
superjawes wrote:So again, I acknowledge that the throttling might be on Netflix's side, but it just seems very unlikely. Any throttling between Netflix and its subscribers is risking a lost subcription, and if we add in content costs that you mentioned, it makes each lost subcription hurt that much more. Let me put it this way: if I were to assign liklihood of blame, I would say the conservative split is 75/25, where it is 75% likely that the ISP would be to blame and 25% that Netflix is to blame. I weigh it this way because from a business perspective, Netflix has the most to lose and the least to gain from throttling.
The Egg wrote:I think you're completely wrong. The average person is only vaguely aware of what services they're paying for, and the vast majority have absolutely no understanding of how those services work. For instance, my boss at work repeatedly refers to his Comcast On-Demand as "the Netflix", and my parents refer to Netflix as "the Roku". For users like these, poor streaming performance is just going to sour them on the whole experience in general, as they don't have enough understanding in the first place to deduce that their ISP might be at fault.
The Egg wrote:For users who have more of an understanding, the kneejerk reaction is probably to blame Netflix (mine was). Reason being, I can see my 55mbit connection going full-speed (or even exceeding it) with every other connection or file transfer. I then see Netflix struggling to pull off a fraction of that, and it's the only service performing poorly.
The Egg wrote:So not only are you wrong about the 50/50, I think the actual numbers are probably even higher in favor of blaming Netflix (whether directly, or by just being soured on the whole experience).
Article wrote:The arrangement comes as federal regulators are wrestling with an issue known as "Net neutrality" concerning broadband providers and whether they can slow down traffic to particular websites, potentially forcing content companies to pay for faster Web service.
Article wrote:As part of the deal, Netflix will deliver its movies and TV programs to Comcast's broadband network directly as opposed through third party providers, giving viewers faster streaming speeds for watching movies and TV programs.
Article wrote:It also could force Netflix to strike similar arrangements, known in the industry as interconnect agreements, with other major broadband providers like Verizon and AT&T.
JBI wrote:'ll bet the impending Comcast/Time-Warner merger gave both parties incentives to quickly come to an agreement. Netflix because they're facing the prospect of having to negotiate with an even more powerful Comcast down the road, and Comcast because they don't want to be seen as a corporate bully, since this would make it less likely for the Time-Warner deal to get regulatory approval.
Glorious wrote:superjawes wrote:Netflix might be pushing OpenConnect, but again, this is more of a solution to something that isn't technically their problem, and the result helps everyone involved (not just Netflix).
I disagree, for the reasons I've stated previously.
1) It *is* their problem.
2) It doesn't help everyone.
Again, for the reasons I've stated previously, I don't believe there is any "throttling" occurring on *either* side.
just brew it! wrote:I'll bet the impending Comcast/Time-Warner merger gave both parties incentives to quickly come to an agreement. Netflix because they're facing the prospect of having to negotiate with an even more powerful Comcast down the road, and Comcast because they don't want to be seen as a corporate bully, since this would make it less likely for the Time-Warner deal to get regulatory approval.
superjawes wrote:Maintaining the network to the end user, and the associated speeds, is not Netflix's responsibility.
superjawes wrote:Therefore, it is not "their problem.
superjawes wrote: It hurts them, but it's not something they should have to shell out money to fix.
superjawes wrote:OpenConnect can ease some of the issues of getting data to end users, so they are happy
superjawes wrote:the ISP doesn't necessarily have to overhaul its network, so it is happy.
superjawes wrote:And assuming this keeps people subscribed to Netflix, netflix is happy.
superjawes wrote:When we have people conducting tests resulting in variable performance across different services, there is definitely some sort of "throttling" going on.
superjawes wrote: Somewhere in the path between Netflix and the user is a bottleneck. If there wasn't one, then this thread wouldn't even exist (referencing OP).
superjawes wrote:You seem to take issue with every single detail that does not fit into your own explanation, even when I was intentionally trying to present why "people on the internet" feel the way they do, and even when I'm trying to see things from your perspective and explain why I disagree. I you aren't going to budge then there really isn't a discussion to have here.
superjawes wrote:It's kind of an odd way to avoid being "seen as a corporate bully," IMO. That merger worries people because of how much power Comcast will have in the business, and this deal sounds a bit like Comcast is flexing said power...
Glorious wrote:That Peter Bright guy at Ars Technica is clearly trying to introduce some sanity into the the situation, but it is so ridiculously toxic towards Verizon/Comcast that he has to spend paragraphs establishing his bonafides as their opponent (as any right-think individual obviously would be!) before he can even get to the point, which is how Verizon/Comcast probably aren't even at fault, there is no actual evidence to say they are, netflix is conspicuously silent and not actually blaming anyone, etc...
article wrote:The analyst, Doug Anmuth, told Re/code Tuesday that Netflix CEO Reed Hastings is confident that Internet providers won't dare to provoke the wrath of users by slowing down access to films and TV shows. More importantly, Re/code reports, Netflix itself hasn't observed anything to suggest that Verizon is throttling bandwidth.
superjawes wrote:Me: "I'm trying to see things from your point of view, but your points just don't make sense to me."
You: "YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!"
superjawes wrote:See how this is going nowhere? I've worked through my logic, I've tried to see things from your point of view, but you keep flipping tables every time a make a point that doesn't fit your specific understanding or description of how the world works.
superjawes wrote:If your purpose was to "educate" people so that we can see things from your point of view, you are severely undermined by your tone.
Glorious wrote:I am unhappy because it ghettoizes the internet.
Jambe wrote:Could you elaborate on this?
I mean, what are your fears/hopes wrt the whole situation, what should ISPs, transit providers, the FCC, etc, ideally do?
Jambe wrote:Given what little I understand, this deal seems to paint dark skies over the transit business (and/or it incentivizes further consolidation of backbones and ISPs).
SpotTheCat wrote:My data supports my decision making.
SpotTheCat wrote:Comcast (quoted as a 20mbps connection to the internet) provided me with an approximately .66mpbs connection to Netflix.
Local crappy DSL service (quoted as a 3mpbs connection to the internet) provides me with a ~ 2.0mbps connection to Netflix.
If Netflix were shorting on their end, how come it works better on the slower carrier? They have the capacity.
SpotTheCat wrote:Throttling aside, motives given competing content aside, I consider myself lucky to be able to have competition that provides me with a minimally acceptable alternative service. That said, I'm not getting the portion of the internet that Comcast doesn't compete with nearly as quickly. 3mbps is slow, it's "not great" (swear filter dodge) that Comcast holds my market hostage to an order of magnitude speed gap.
SpotTheCat wrote:My opinion is that a company should not be able to advertise the sale of a connection speed to the internet if you cannot provide that connection speed to something on the internet. In other words, the internet is not just the "last mile" of service. If only the False Claims Act, or something with equal legal footing, could be used against ISPs.
Kougar wrote:Lets revive a few points. Comcast is now being paid by the consumer, the service provider that sends out said Netflix traffic, and also paid by Netflix directly. That's 3 separate parties. Comcast is now effectively paid by the receiver, the sender, and the middle-man.
Kougar wrote:I don't see how that is remotely justifiable. That's JUST for Netlfix traffic as well. So should Google start paying Comcast for Youtube (as well as all the internet bandwidth providers that host Youtube traffic) as well? And Hulu? Where does the absurdity stop?
Kougar wrote:Also, in reply to an old post: cable ISPs do have plenty of bandwidth to spare... just look at TWC in Austin, TX. With Google Fiber now rolling out TWC overnight increased every service tier by anywhere from 50% to six times it's former level, and upload bandwidth by as much as 4x. Which is ironic given the lowest tier had a 5GB data cap a month back in 2012... http://www.pcworld.com/article/2099908/ ... looms.html
Glorious wrote:Kougar wrote:Lets revive a few points. Comcast is now being paid by the consumer, the service provider that sends out said Netflix traffic, and also paid by Netflix directly. That's 3 separate parties. Comcast is now effectively paid by the receiver, the sender, and the middle-man.
The whole point of the Netflix deal is that since they are hosted on Comcast's internal network they don't need to go through Cogent to get to Comcast anymore.
Glorious wrote:When people stop pretending the internet is "free."
AT&T Sr. Exec. VP Jim Cicconi wrote: "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. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings' arrogant proposition is that everyone else should pay but Netflix."
Kougar wrote:That's incorrect on both points. Comcast isn't hosting anything from Netflix. They simply agreed to a direct connection between Comcast and Netflix's servers, cutting out transit providers entirely. Netflix actually offered the options of direct peering, caching, or locally hosted servers before all this and had been repeatedly turned down by Comcast.
Kougar wrote:Secondly, Congent/Level 3 still have to pay regardless of Netflix caving in to demands. http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... -networks/ & http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/03 ... isp-tolls/ In particular Netflix still has to pay Congent, Level 3, and anyone else it uses for traffic distribution because Comcast does not serve all of Netflix's customers.
Kougar wrote:Of course it isn't free. Netflix pays its transit providers, and we pay both the ISP and Netflix. Transit providers have arrangements at the internet backbone. And I believe ISPs pay a little back into the Internet backbone. Comcast had a final net income of $6.8 Billion last year, and that will only go up this year after more middle-men and Netflix agreed to pay up. Yet Comcast refused to upgrade it's own infrastructure to handle the loads until Netflix agreed to pay up just to allow the direct connection.
Glorious wrote:Sure, and it *might* just be Cogent. Why? Because perhaps Cogent isn't interested in spending massive amounts of money upgrading its interconnects with Comcast and Verizon for the benefit of one really big customer that is EXPLICITLY trying to jump ship and cut Cogent out of the loop via "OpenConnect."
You see, if I were Cogent, I'd be asking for *BIG* money to do those sort of upgrades, because I'd be deathly afraid of being left holding the bag!
Netflix wouldn't want to pay, because it's trying to get out of that situation in favor of "OpenConnect." And so, the performance of the existing interconnects would slowly degrade under the weight of increasing traffic without concomitant upgrades.
Kougar wrote:By your argument, how are Cogent, Level 3, and other transit providers supposed to function economically if they are required to pay every single last mile ISP connected at any point down the chain from them? If their only source of income is their source of traffic yet they are required to pay for their own internet infrastructure + fees to a dozen ISPs, that's going to make internet services a lot more expensive. AT&T and Verizon are already forcing transit providers into their own payment arrangements using the same delayed infrastructure upgrade tactics that Comcast pulled. This isn't how internet economics work when transit providers connect at the other end to the internet backbone.
kougar wrote:I don't see it any different than a toll road. Lets say I build a toll road, and charge the traffic going between two cities. My toll road functions as a transit provider between the cities and is no different than Congent or Level 3 as they provide the underlying infrastructure that gets data traffic from Netflix to ISPs. So as the toll road owner I'd be paying one of the cities (IE Comcast) just to have my toll road feeding their city traffic. That's just absurd. The economics seemed fine until Comcast decided $6.8 Billion in pure profit wasn't enough to warranty upgrading its own infrastructure, and used that to blackmail both transit providers and Netflix. Next up may be Youtube, or probably even Valve's Steam service. Given every single Dota 2 update consumes 3% of total mobile + land based internet traffic for a brief period, I'm sure Steam would be a very tempting next target.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 7 guests