TR Forums

highlandr wrote:

Old news Glorious:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/26/47747 ... on-all-isp

The point is that they did it for months and not one of the network neutrality hawks took a break from promoting Netflix's cause against Verizon/Comcast to complain about it.

Which shows that there is something SERIOUSLY and DEEPLY wrong not only with the narrative you are still peddling but the agenda that underlies it.

highlandr wrote:

Netflix WANTS these devices in big ISP racks. It lowers the ISP congestion, lowers Netflix CDN costs, and improves the experience for end users. Big media ISP companies want to make more money off this popular service, or drive people to their other, oftentimes inferior or more expensive services.

Even though they haven't violated the concept of network neutrality to do it whereas Netflix ALREADY HAS.

And yes, Netflix does indeed "WANT" this, but yet since they are so *obviously* blameless, no one considers the possibility that Netflix might degrade its connections to the big ISPs to induce them to accept Netflix's deal, which would save Netflix tens of millions in bandwidth/hosting costs. Even though, of course, Netflix clearly knows that all public condemnation would fall on the ISPs first.

NOPE. Back to the one-sided narrative again.

Glorius, if you want to take some academic stand that says for theoretical purity Netflix ought to offer to attempt to deliver a higher bandwidth stream to all customers even despite knowing there is little chance that stream will arrive without the accompanying infrastructure they are offering at no charge to those who need it, I guess I could support you on that nitpick. However since I already can't reliably get even the lower bandwidth HD stream, it wouldn't make any real world difference to me or I suspect most cable customers.

But for the most part I think that complaint makes as much sense as me complaining that Netflix requires that I own a device that can display video, and a device that can decode a video signal. Those aren't arbitrary demands extorted on me via a position of superior negotiating strength (created by regulatory mono/duopoly); they are legitimate and necessary requirements in order to successfully provide the service I want.

I do not see how Netflix is violating any neutrality. They are offering the necessary hardware to support the highest stream and improve the lower ones to any willing ISP at no cost to the ISP, including for the materials, the service, or the shipping. If you can show me they are playing favorites or attaching unrelated demands to it, then maybe there's an issue to discuss.

Meanwhile as a consumer who is paying a very high price that I know contains a very high profit margin only to receive network service that would be considered very subpar in many countries supposedly less developed than my own, I remain quite offended that my cable company is trying to recharge someone else for the same bandwidth it has already sold to me, with me facing the penalty that my own bandwidth will be rendered substantially less useful if this other 3rd party doesn't pay some arbitrary cable extortion charge.

brucek2 wrote:

Glorius, if you want to take some academic stand that says for theoretical purity Netflix ought to offer to attempt to deliver a higher bandwidth stream to all customers even despite knowing there is little chance that stream will arrive without the accompanying infrastructure they are offering at no charge to those who need it, I guess I could support you on that nitpick. However since I already can't reliably get even the lower bandwidth HD stream, it wouldn't make any real world difference to me or I suspect most cable customers.

It isn't academic at all. I am saying that the only actor in this absurd melodrama that has actually violated the vaunted and evidently sanctified concept of "Network Neutrality" at this point is, in fact, Netflix. They were openly and unabashedly providing tiered internet service just a few months ago and no one said boo.

Meanwhile, people are frequently scaremongering about how certain big ISPs, (all of which are currently in Netflix's self-published top ten best ISP list) *might* *theoretically* violate "Network Neutrality" at some tenuous point in the future. So, onward to the barricades Interwebz!!!

And why would these ISPs do so? Because they want to make money, and we don't like them. Whereas we like Netflix and Netflix wants to make money, but like, only because they have to.

brucek2 wrote:

But for the most part I think that complaint makes as much sense as me complaining that Netflix requires that I own a device that can display video, and a device that can decode a video signal. Those aren't arbitrary demands extorted on me via a position of superior negotiating strength (created by regulatory mono/duopoly); they are legitimate and necessary requirements in order to successfully provide the service I want.

Regulatory waaah? You mean the natural and utterly inevitable network effect?

brucek2 wrote:

I do not see how Netflix is violating any neutrality. They are offering the necessary hardware to support the highest stream and improve the lower ones to any willing ISP at no cost to the ISP, including for the materials, the service, or the shipping. If you can show me they are playing favorites or attaching unrelated demands to it, then maybe there's an issue to discuss.

Dude? The very concept kills the idea of the open and "neutral" internet. Instead of going to servers on whatever external network they reside, you're saying everyone should go to servers within their own network ghetto. That isn't a neutral network, that's a network deliberately biased towards insularity, and it means we *all* suffer.

Why? Because by keeping the big bandwidth boys within the ISPs internal network, that means there is less need to develop external connections. Instead of the internet getting faster overall, to the generic benefit of everyone who uses it, it just becomes faster intra-network for the ISPs, and likely then only in a very limited (almost simplex-like) fashion.

And, what if competing companies to Netflix aren't big enough to offer or get such a deal? This idea definitionally plays favorites because only the big players can make this kind of arrangement. What you are advocating is fostering the exact antithesis of the supposed internet ideal, which everyone (falsely) thinks "network neutrality" encapsulates.

brucek2 wrote:

Meanwhile as a consumer who is paying a very high price that I know contains a very high profit margin only to receive network service that would be considered very subpar in many countries supposedly less developed than my own, I remain quite offended that my cable company is trying to recharge someone else for the same bandwidth it has already sold to me, with me facing the penalty that my own bandwidth will be rendered substantially less useful if this other 3rd party doesn't pay some arbitrary cable extortion charge.

You are mistaken.

1. The comparison to other countries is almost always misleading. Make a specific claim and I'll show you how.
2. They are not "recharging" "someone else." Netflix, like you, uses the internet. They weren't born there, or independently exist there. They have servers that need to reach your devices just as your devices need to reach their servers. They don't have a special "internet hall pass" that allows them to use it for free just because they provide something you happen to want. No, they too must pay for their connection and bandwidth. And thus, they do, just like everyone else who is not a tier-1 network (like cogent or Level-3). Your ISP does not charge Netflix for the privilege of accessing your computer, Netflix pays the equivalent of their ISP to access the internet, and thus your computer.

Glorious wrote:

Regulatory waaah? You mean the natural and utterly inevitable network effect?

I think this may be the root of why we view these companies and this situation so differently.

I was not talking about the "network effect." I was talking about the permit decisions made decades ago on a community by community basis, in which one prospective cable provider was allowed to open up shop, and (usually) several others were denied.

Most communities had multiple entities that were willing to invest money to run wires to homes & businesses in those communities. But most communities, through a regulatory or political decision, allowed only one of the entities to do so, while denying all those others.

That is why the portion of these companies that manages these cables are fundamentally utilities. They are not operating in a free market, far from it. They have been granted an exclusive opportunity that others were prevented from entering and are still prevented from entering, due to government decision. Their market power is not based on "network effect" or having provided a better product or service; its based on having a monopoly privilege of running a fat coax cable over and under streets.

So yes, the cable company deserves a far higher level of public scrutiny over how it uses its exclusive cables running into the nation's homes. As soon as there are hints that it is manipulating its management of those cables to extend an unfair advantage, there should be follow up.

Netflix, meanwhile, is in a completely different category. None of its position is due to a government decision that favors them over a similar competitor. Anyone who feels they can do better than Netflix in providing these types of services is free to try, and indeed anyone with an internet connection has many choices of where to rent/purchase streaming/downloaded video.

brucek2 wrote:

Most communities had multiple entities that were willing to invest money to run wires to homes & businesses in those communities. But most communities, through a regulatory or political decision, allowed only one of the entities to do so, while denying all those others.

Yes, multiple entities that were willing to initially wire homes, not simultaneously.

brucek2 wrote:

That is why the portion of these companies that manages these cables are fundamentally utilities. They are not operating in a free market, far from it. They have been granted an exclusive opportunity that others were prevented from entering and are still prevented from entering, due to government decision. Their market power is not based on "network effect" or having provided a better product or service; its based on having a monopoly privilege of running a fat coax cable over and under streets.

You're right, I didn't actually mean network effect. I meant Natural Monopoly, which is what the Last Mile plainly is without any government intervention or enforced exclusion.

Companies aren't going to line up to be the second, or third party to wire someone's home. That's an utterly enormous expense that must be amortized over long periods of time and companies aren't in business to provide customers with competition. Just because they want you to choose them doesn't mean they have any interest in offering you choice. Ideally, they want to guarantee your loyalty. They want your money, not your freedom.

And, clearly, what you are describing is ridiculously inefficient. Have two or three sets of cables with independent infrastructure that do exactly the same thing is heinously wasteful.

brucek2 wrote:

So yes, the cable company deserves a far higher level of public scrutiny over how it uses its exclusive cables running into the nation's homes. As soon as there are hints that it is manipulating its management of those cables to extend an unfair advantage, there should be follow up.

What you really seem to want is Common Carrier for the last mile. The merits of that are debatable, but the concept is incompatible with Netflix's Openconnect policy.

Netflix wants OpenConnect because they don't want to pay transit costs, with Common Carrier they'd absolutely have to. Common Carrier would explicitly preclude anything like OpenConnect from existing.

Like I've said repeatedly, you guys don't have any idea what you really want.

From the town council's perspective, it's not just that having five sets of cables run to each house would be inefficient. The city doesn't want to tear up the street five different times to run those cables. Many municipalities have a policy that they notify all of the utility companies "Hey, we're going to dig up elm street to upgrade water, sewer and storm drainage next spring. If you want to lay new fiber or cable at the same time, we'll let you put it in the hole before we repave the street. Otherwise, you'll bear the full cost of any future excavation and repairs to the pavement."

Glorious wrote:

2. They are not "recharging" "someone else." Netflix, like you, uses the internet. They weren't born there, or independently exist there. They have servers that need to reach your devices just as your devices need to reach their servers. They don't have a special "internet hall pass" that allows them to use it for free just because they provide something you happen to want. No, they too must pay for their connection and bandwidth. And thus, they do, just like everyone else who is not a tier-1 network (like cogent or Level-3). Your ISP does not charge Netflix for the privilege of accessing your computer, Netflix pays the equivalent of their ISP to access the internet, and thus your computer.

This is exactly what ISPs like ATT and Comcast are trying to do - figure out a way to get Netflix (and youtube, lets not pick favorites here) to pay THEM because they produce the majority of the traffic their customers are using. ISPs are trying to create a "Elite" traffic tier that is supported by the producer, not the consumer. Part of this is tactic requires secretly hampering these services so that the new "Elite" tier is needed. No one can prove this is happening, but the first page of posts in this topic certainly points in that direction.

As for the Netflix OpenConnect, I think most people are treating it more like a transparent proxy or cache rather than exclusivity. I agree that the 6-8 months that SuperHD were only available to certain ISPs sucked, but you could also argue that it was a beta rollout by Netflix to certain markets they had better monitoring and insight into.

The reason people are hating on ISPs is because they are the ones doing the complaining. Netflix and Youtube don't sit around going "Oh NOES! Our CDN costs are 90% of our operating expenses! The internet is broken! We need to charge Comcast because they have the most customers!" (They did effectively double their rates when they split DVDs and streaming, and I dropped them for about a year because of it) Meanwhile ATT and Comcast are shouting "Netflix is breaking the internet! We can't make 90% profit margins just off of subscriber fees anymore! We need to charge the internet for creating this large demand for the internet!"

highlandr wrote:

his is exactly what ISPs like ATT and Comcast are trying to do - figure out a way to get Netflix (and youtube, lets not pick favorites here) to pay THEM because they produce the majority of the traffic their customers are using. ISPs are trying to create a "Elite" traffic tier that is supported by the producer, not the consumer. Part of this is tactic requires secretly hampering these services so that the new "Elite" tier is needed. No one can prove this is happening, but the first page of posts in this topic certainly points in that direction.

Whereas netflix's own ISP rankings do not.

highlandr wrote:

As for the Netflix OpenConnect, I think most people are treating it more like a transparent proxy or cache rather than exclusivity. I agree that the 6-8 months that SuperHD were only available to certain ISPs sucked, but you could also argue that it was a beta rollout by Netflix to certain markets they had better monitoring and insight into.

Like I said, the reflexive apology for Netflix and the automatic suspicion of the ISPs should be a cause for introspection, not diminution.

highlandr wrote:

The reason people are hating on ISPs is because they are the ones doing the complaining. Netflix and Youtube don't sit around going "Oh NOES! Our CDN costs are 90% of our operating expenses! The internet is broken! We need to charge Comcast because they have the most customers!" (They did effectively double their rates when they split DVDs and streaming, and I dropped them for about a year because of it) Meanwhile ATT and Comcast are shouting "Netflix is breaking the internet! We can't make 90% profit margins just off of subscriber fees anymore! We need to charge the internet for creating this large demand for the internet!"

OpenConnect is Netflix's way of complaining about "CDN costs", they're just getting *you* to do it for them. For free too.

I'm all for dumb pipes and separating "content production" from "delivery" when it comes to internet providers. I voted with my wallet today. Goodbye, Comcast! Lots of people in my area have done that, and all of them so far have been happy.

After all these years, Glorious is still weird and disagreeable

Glorious. What do you pay your ISP for, if not to connect you to the content you want? Do you pay them to connect you to only part of the internet, the part they want you to connect to?

It doesn't matter how much the backbone bandwidth costs; bandwidth is exactly what you are buying from the ISP! If it costs too much, charge more and then deliver what you quote.

My 3mpbs internet delivers an enormous quality of service increase on netflix and youtube over 20mbps Comcast. Comcast isn't in the internet business anymore, they are in the media business.

SpotTheCat wrote:

After all these years, Glorious is still weird and disagreeable

I prefer to think of it as providing a service. Someone needs to have a more critical outlook lest these sorts of threads turn into empty echo chambers.

SpotTheCat wrote:

Glorious. What do you pay your ISP for, if not to connect you to the content you want? Do you pay them to connect you to only part of the internet, the part they want you to connect to?

I'm not really sure where you intend to go with this rhetorical question.

My point has been, from the very beginning, that Netflix equally must pay to connect to the internet.

What I'm saying in this thread is that since Netflix does not want to pay, and since Netflix wants to implement OpenConnect, you can't blindly blame Comcast for any connectivity issues. If we're just going to throw around baseless allegations of perfidy, why not blame Netflix for having crappy connections to Comcast in order to induce Comcast to accept OpenConnect and thus remove Netflix's bandwidth costs?

I've pointed out that Netflix has played unfair games with Level3 in the previous thread, and I've pointed out that OpenConnect flagrantly violate Network Neutrality in this one. But that's all ignored, why?

Oh, because Netflix is axiomatically the "Good guy" and Comcast is axiomatically the "Bad guy" even though both are companies that only want your money.

SpotTheCat wrote:

My 3mpbs internet delivers an enormous quality of service increase on netflix and youtube over 20mbps Comcast. Comcast isn't in the internet business anymore, they are in the media business.

Did you even try to use the Google open DNS?

And, once again, Netflix's self-published ISP rankings do not agree with that statement.

Maybe you are right, but you seem to be a lot more interested in upholding a conclusion than developing an understanding.

Glorious wrote:

My point has been, from the very beginning, that Netflix equally must pay to connect to the internet.

They do pay to connect to the internet. If they didn't then you wouldn't be receiving the Stream from them. What you really seem to be saying is that Netflix should pay TWICE to connect to the internet.

travbrad wrote:

They do pay to connect to the internet. If they didn't then you wouldn't be receiving the Stream from them. What you really seem to be saying is that Netflix should pay TWICE to connect to the internet.

Feel free to explain how, because that's news to me.

Glorious wrote:

travbrad wrote:

They do pay to connect to the internet. If they didn't then you wouldn't be receiving the Stream from them. What you really seem to be saying is that Netflix should pay TWICE to connect to the internet.

Feel free to explain how, because that's news to me.

Um...because they're connected to the internet? Netflix has to pay to connect to someone else's network, which distributes data to end users. The only other way for said data to get to end users would be a network specifically set up by Netflix to distribute content.

But, of course, it would be unrealistic for EVERY content provider to maintain a separate network, which is why Netflix pays their local providers to upload data to the internet, and end users pay their local providers to receive (download) the data from the internet.

Make sense?

superjawes wrote:

m...because they're connected to the internet? Netflix has to pay to connect to someone else's network, which distributes data to end users. The only other way for said data to get to end users would be a network specifically set up by Netflix to distribute content.

But, of course, it would be unrealistic for EVERY content provider to maintain a separate network, which is why Netflix pays their local providers to upload data to the internet, and end users pay their local providers to receive (download) the data from the internet.

Make sense?

Well, yeah. That's what I've been saying.

What I was asking about was the part where travbrad seems to think I'm saying Netflix needs to pay twice.

I wasn't aware that what was what I was saying.

So what's going on here? Are you criticizing Netflix for trying to improve speeds to customers? Or are you criticizing Net Neutrality advocates for not taking issue with Netflix improving speeds to customers?

The Net Neutrality issue has nothing to do with Netflix because they aren't in the ISP business. The issue comes from ISPs who can and do throttle data from particular sources because A) the ISP has thrown a hat into the content business (so discriminating against Netflix encourages use of the in-house service) or B) the ISP is dragging its feet when it comes to upgrading its network.

If Netflix is working with ISPs in some way, that doesn't violate Net Neutrality because options for the end user are not changed. It is when services and content are restricted (by the ISP) that there is an issue.

Verizon could be throttling Netflix and Amazon, but there’s no actual evidence of it
The things customer service reps say probably shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Relevant given the opening post.

Net Neutrality issue has nothing to do with Netflix because they aren't in the ISP business.

It doesn't?

So it's okay for Netflix to screw over Comcast and their customers on purpose if it so desires?

You might want to re-think the consequences of the idea you're pushing.

Ryu Connor wrote:

It doesn't?

So it's okay for Netflix to screw over Comcast and their customers on purpose if it so desires?

You might want to re-think the consequences of the idea you're pushing.

I'm sorry...how is Netflix "screwing over" Comcast? I see their involvement in the ISP stage of things as solving a problem that isn't actually their's to solve. If the ISP's network is congested, resulting in lower perfomance to customers, then the ISP should be improving its network so that customers receive the performance they are paying for.

But since that can be difficult and expensive, "Open Connect" is offering a way to ease the congestion. Again, Netflix shouldn't have to do anything. They only have to offer the content, and it is the ISP's responsibility to deliver said content at the speed the customer is paying for. Unless "Open Connect" is also manipulating other services, why would there be an issue?

superjawes wrote:

I'm sorry...how is Netflix "screwing over" Comcast? I see their involvement in the ISP stage of things as solving a problem that isn't actually their's to solve. If the ISP's network is congested, resulting in lower perfomance to customers, then the ISP should be improving its network so that customers receive the performance they are paying for.

Dude. I've said it numerous times. Ryu has said it too.

Are you so caught up in the narrative that you can't even conceive that Netflix might be the one playing games?

Let me repeat myself:

Glorious wrote:

If we're just going to throw around baseless allegations of perfidy, why not blame Netflix for having crappy connections to Comcast in order to induce Comcast to accept OpenConnect and thus remove Netflix's bandwidth costs?

Or:

Glorious wrote:

And yes, Netflix does indeed "WANT" this, but yet since they are so *obviously* blameless, no one considers the possibility that Netflix might degrade its connections to the big ISPs to induce them to accept Netflix's deal, which would save Netflix tens of millions in bandwidth/hosting costs. Even though, of course, Netflix clearly knows that all public condemnation would fall on the ISPs first.

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.

My point, at least, is that you guys obvious cannot even conceive of this as a possibility because you're all ridiculously pre-programmed into hating on the ISPs. Literally. To the point where SpotTheCat straight-up called me "weird" and "disagreeable" because I continually keep asking everyone why they insist on drinking the flavor-aid. I guess I should just blindly get on the bandwagon.... That's "normal" and "agreeable."

I really don't know how I can say it differently, so I have to honestly conclude that you guys are just unwilling to try and understand it. Which is sad, but whatever.

Here's the thing, though...it doesn't make sense for Netflix to degrade connections to ISPs like Comcast. That would alienate thousands if not millions of customers and potential customers. Comcast on its own accounts for about 17 million customers in the US.

Yes, if that were the case, Netflix would be at fault, but why would they? It makes much more sense for them to offer the best speeds possible so that users get hooked on shows and video quality that can be better than what they get via a cable box. Is there really a business case where Neflix gains an advantage by offering an inferior product?

EDIT: the reason we focus on the ISPs is that the ISPs do, in fact, have a business incentive to discriminate against certain content. It also is advantageous for them to keep their networks running at current speeds to avoid paying for network upgrades. Even if it allows them to offer higher download speeds, as long as they aren't losing customers, there isn't an incentive to upgrade.

You're not a vicious enough businessman.

Netflix would abuse its majority status the same way Fox cuts off their content from Dish. Leverage.

The customer doesn't care, they'll just beat down Comcast lines until Comcast accepts Netflix terms.

superjawes wrote:

Here's the thing, though...it doesn't make sense for Netflix to degrade connections to ISPs like Comcast. That would alienate thousands if not millions of customers and potential customers. Comcast on its own accounts for about 17 million customers in the US.

Virtually all of whom will automatically blame Comcast.

Did you read Ryu's post? That was exactly his point: even the OP demonstrates it!

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. My point is that everyone automatically thinks that Comcast IS doing that (including the OP) despite the fact that they don't actually know that, they're not interested in trying to establish it and how the entire notion is belied by netflix's own top ten ISP rankings.

superjawes wrote:

Yes, if that were the case, Netflix would be at fault, but why would they? It makes much more sense for them to offer the best speeds possible so that users get hooked on shows and video quality that can be better than what they get via a cable box. Is there really a business case where Neflix gains an advantage by offering an inferior product?

YES. I have stated it many times! They gain an advantage by inducing Comcast to acquiesce and implement OpenConnect, which will save Netflix a lot of money. The fact that Netflix obviously knows (and is PROVEN by this thread) that everyone will reflexively blame Comcast and not Netflix for degraded connectivity only strengthens their hand.

The fact that i've said this CONTINUALLY and everyone REPEATEDLY ignores it just demonstrates that you guys all have a massive blindside: you assume netflix is pure and holy and comcast is evil and ugly.

That's not only facile and ridiculous, but dangerous.

Isn't the point of Open Connect that both parties save money by caching frequently accessed content? I don't see how offering a solution to ISPs' complaints that connections from Netflix to users are hogging all the bandwidth makes them villainous villains.

1. Okay, maybe I'm not "vicious" enough, but I still don't think that Netflix throttling data makes any damn sense. Even if people "blame Comcast," not being able to access the content you're paying for is grounds for cancelling your subscription. Got that? By limiting speeds to their own users, Netflix risks losing business. That isn't vicious. It's stupid.

2. And as Novus points out, OpenConnect would benefit both Comcast and Netflix. The issue with Netflix traffic is that means more users are using more of their bandwidth. Comcast can handle this by upgrading the network (at a cost to them) or throttling the data (bad for the end user). Netflix is simply offering a third option that would make things better for everyone. OpenConnect would reduce the overall traffic on Comcast's network, allowing Netflix customers to get better quality content during peak hours without an investment by Comcast.

Like I said, it's possible that Netflix is doing something shady, but it requires a lot of strange logic to get to that point when there are much, much simpler explanations.

OpenConnect does not benefit Comcast. Peering agreements are better.

It is not strange logic and exist all around you. You're choosing to ignore broadcaster and cable company fights (retransmission rights).

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/tv/2013/08/ ... sed-to-it/

Netflix: That's a really nice ISP/customer base you got there, shame if anything happened to it.

I think Glorious is right, their is some purposeful obtuseness happening here.

Retransmission rights are about a different means of content delivery--one that is dying, IMHO. Television channels never get paid by viewers for the delivered content. Viewers pay the cable/satellite company, who "buys" the channels that it is selling to viewers. The fight you linked is about that relationship. Users choose content that would be provided by the local affiliates, but the local affiliates don't get to see any extra money for that, hence the issue between the two.

Now Netflix actually does get cash from viewers. They also pay to connect to the web, and viewers pay the ISP to connect to the web. There is no buy/repackage/sell model. In fact, we do face the very real possibility that the same ISP is getting paid by Netflix and the viewer for the connection being made.

The question is, who stands to gain something anything from throttling speeds between the service and the viewer? Netflix would be at risk of losing customers due to poor service. Unhappy customer -> no more subscription income. Their best case for throttling data is what? Maybe they get lower transmission costs IF they have a partner in the area and IF users know about the partnership? Those are some pretty big "ifs" when the user can just save $8+/month or get HBO instead.

And as already discussed, at length, ISPs have pretty clear benefits to throttling data with relatively little consequence since they operate under monopolies or duopolies most of the time. I'm not choosing to ignore anything. I'm choosing the simplest explanation that appears to fit most of the evidence we have.

Ryu Connor wrote:

Netflix: That's a really nice ISP/customer base you got there, shame if anything happened to it.
I think Glorious is right, their is some purposeful obtuseness happening here.

I think both sides have made some really good points in this thread. The blame may actually lie somewhere in the middle, but I think most of the controversy in this discussion is about whether either company is INTENTIONALLY doing something nefarious.

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.

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.

So again, I'm talking about whether either company is INTENTIONALLY doing something which results in lower performance, and simply put:

• I can't see Netflix intentionally risking a huge number of subscribers and taking horrible collateral damage
• I can't see Netflix being delusional enough to believe that degrading their own service is going to gain leverage over a titanic ISP like Comcast

They have no leverage in that regard. The only leverage they have is to say "Hey guys, let us help save you some money".

I could see Netflix throttling in response to complaints/threats from ISPs concerning bandwidth or to balance what they feed users on a known trainwreck IP range, but doing it maliciously as leverage over ISPs makes no sense at all. Leverage for what? Peering? Netflix doesn't own wires, they don't even have many datacenters--they use AWS--so infrastructure is someone else's problem. Money? Netflix/Amazon pays ISPs, not the other way around, and they're not the ones complaining about bandwidth costs. Content wars? Maybe, but Netflix isn't a (serious) content producer so there's no benefit for them in doing this.

Trying to draw parallels with cable TV doesn't work because with cable the money flows from content consumers to content providers so there's plenty of ways the guys along the river can demand a bigger piece of the action. But on the Internet, both sides pay into the middle. And therein lies the problem: Netflix and its users are each paying X dollars for Y upload/download capacity and then being told that they shouldn't actually use it.

edit: Somewhat off topic, but when double checking something I ran across an article about how Netflix regularly pwns itself to identify problems. Regardless of one's take on Netflix vs. telecoms we can surely all agree that they have some badass IT policies. Too bad all the physical wires run though a lightning rod in Virginia.

NovusBogus wrote:

Content wars? Maybe, but Netflix isn't a (serious) content producer so there's no benefit for them in doing this.

They actually are, or at least they are trying to be. After all, they did bring back Arrested Development and introduced at least two new shows, Orange is the New Black and House of Cards, which features Kevin Spacey (an Academy Award winner). Still, three shows hardly constitutes a "war," especially when shows like Arrested Development had to fight for years to get back on the air.

I also see this more as a fight between them and traditional TV channels for rights to such shows, made more interesting by a different model (you get the entire season of Netflix shows at once instead of 1/week).