Comcast-Netflix Deal May Not Be a Bad Thing

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I'm not sure how this guy thinks this "may not be a bad thing." Obviously, if Netflix has to cough up money to Comcast, that expense will be passed on to Netflix users, regardless whether or not they are Comcast subscribers. :(

Comcast wants Netflix to pay for direct access to its network, and Netflix is now paying. It has to. Its service is starting to slow down on Comcast’s network, and it needs direct access to ensure that things improve. The question is whether others can afford to do this.
Click to expand...
 
Steve said:
Obviously, if Netflix has to cough up money to Comcast, that expense will be passed on to Netflix users, regardless whether or not they are Comcast subscribers. :(
Click to expand...

They were already paying cogent. Since Comcast traffic won't be going over cogent's networks anymore, I'd imagine they will now be paying cogent less.

It would be like deciding to get your fruit from the farmer's market instead of the grocery store. It's not a new expense, you just bought it from somewhere else, and likely saved money in the process.
 
It's set's a HORRIBLE precedent of big ISP's DOUBLE-DIPPING for what they've already been paid for...
If people don't see how fucking wrong this is, then they deserve to get ass-reamed with no lube by the only ISP they are "lucky" to have in their neck of the woods....
 
mzs_biteme said:
It's set's a HORRIBLE precedent of big ISP's DOUBLE-DIPPING for what they've already been paid for...
If people don't see how fucking wrong this is, then they deserve to get ass-reamed with no lube by the only ISP they are "lucky" to have in their neck of the woods....
Click to expand...

they arent double dipping. just think of it as netflix moving servers into some comcast datacenters.

comcast isnt so much selling them access to their network. theyre selling access to their datacenter space.

again, this isn't a new practice.
 
This new injection of cash won't be good enough for long. Comcast will continue to raise rates twice a year.
 
Sp33dFr33k said:
This new injection of cash won't be good enough for long. Comcast will continue to raise rates twice a year.
Click to expand...

my comcast rates haven't changed in almost 5 years...

though it may be the fact that it's business class
 
For those defending Comcast, is this going to make my 70mb Verizon FIOS stop stuttering on Netflix and hulu. If not then you can all STFU. Netflix shouldn't have to pay every ISP to give the service that the ISPs customers are already paying for.
 
madrebel said:
they arent double dipping. just think of it as netflix moving servers into some comcast datacenters.

comcast isnt so much selling them access to their network. theyre selling access to their datacenter space.

again, this isn't a new practice.
Click to expand...

You must of missed the part where Netflix has been for YEARS offering to provide their own servers (actual hardware) loaded with the most popular content (~ %80 of all their library) to major ISP's for free...!!! All the ISP would have to do is plug it in, and turn it on... Bam, done.... Did they accept? Fuck NO!!! Cuz they wouldn't be able to charge Netflix for supposed "bandwidth hogging" ... Like I said before, if you have an option to go with Google Fiber, or any other local, smaller ISP with much better speeds and prices, but you don't cuz you "need" unreliable speed internet/land line/ESPN package for $200/month, you deserve what's coming up next... And it ain't gonna be pretty...:eek:
 
mzs_biteme said:
You must of missed the part where Netflix has been for YEARS offering to provide their own servers (actual hardware) loaded with the most popular content (~ %80 of all their library) to major ISP's for free...!!! All the ISP would have to do is plug it in, and turn it on... Bam, done.... Did they accept? Fuck NO!!! Cuz they wouldn't be able to charge Netflix for supposed "bandwidth hogging" ... Like I said before, if you have an option to go with Google Fiber, or any other local, smaller ISP with much better speeds and prices, but you don't cuz you "need" unreliable speed internet/land line/ESPN package for $200/month, you deserve what's coming up next... And it ain't gonna be pretty...:eek:
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would really call it free. You have to have a 10Gbps connection dedicated for just their traffic (that you pay for) to get a cache server on your network.

https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect/guidelines
 
GotNoRice said:
It would be like deciding to get your fruit from the farmer's market instead of the grocery store. It's not a new expense, you just bought it from somewhere else, and likely saved money in the process.
Click to expand...

The end user price isnt the issue most people find objectionable. The issue people have with this is the pay-to-play system that content streaming business is turning into; which would be more similar to this scenario:

Imagine you wanted to open a farm. Now imagine ALL of the upstream rivers and sources of water were controlled by a cabal of the countries largest farming corporations, and you had to license their water at a yearly fee if you wanted to grow anything.

Imagine this fee is, to these massive companies, just a small cost of doing business. But to your startup farmer, its many times their total annual income just for the license. This creates a pay-wall for someone to become a farmer, and protects the large corporations from outside competition.... increasing prices for everyone.

Business theory 101





comcast isnt so much selling them access to their network. theyre selling access to their datacenter space.
Click to expand...

This could be true if comcast hadnt actively interfered with download speeds of a specific companies service; a service which is in direct competition to their own services (which is an anti-competitive practice, and is illegal if anyone bothered to enforce laws in the US). If the terms of the agreement were "you pay us $X per server, or $X per cubic feet of rackspace that your stuff takes up", I would agree with you. But that isnt what happened at all.

What happened is netflix had to directly pay extra to have their data treated not preferentially; but just the same as any other data that comcasts' customers would request. Data which Netflix is not the initiator of; meaning it is comcasts' customers who initiate the connection and request the data, so rightfully it is they that should foot the bill (as they already do). That is the definition of 'double dipping'.

Cell carriers have been charging 5 cents per txt message for decades; how would you feel about being charged by your ISP 5 cents per youtube video? Or half a cent per email? Or 1000 google searches per month free, then 2 cents per google search after that...? Or would it be so much easier for you, if you could pay a $flat/mo and be able to text as often as you want?

Since its as difficult to know how many youtube videos your family will watch next month; and how many text messages you may send next July; its impossible to plan or budget. The cell-texting plans of the past, and now the digital streaming industry of today, are both designed so that you leave money on the table; so that the odds are that the average customer will always end up paying a little more than they would technically have been required to according to the terms of service, padding the companies stock price an extra percent.

We dont need more complicated tiers of shit. Obfuscation is the sole benefit of the provider, and as soon as we eliminate this type of disingenuous behavior, we can have fair competition in the marketplace (fair to both consumers and businesses.... at the same time... imagine such a thing!).
 
ghost6303 said:
The end user price isnt the issue most people find objectionable.
Click to expand...

My post didn't have anything to do with end user pricing. I was refering to netflix's costs (since they are the one paying for bandwidth). They were buying all of their bandwidth from Cogent. Now they are buying less bandwidth from Cogent, and some from Comcast instead.

ghost6303 said:
The issue people have with this is the pay-to-play system that content streaming business is turning into; which would be more similar to this scenario
Click to expand...

How is this a "pay to play" issue? Paying for bandwidth is a very basic issue, so hopefully that's not what you're referring to. Netflix is the only one paying anyone anything here, and the only thing they are paying for is bandwidth - something they were already paying for before.

ghost6303 said:
This could be true if comcast hadnt actively interfered with download speeds of a specific companies service
Click to expand...

They didn't.

The only issue between Comcast and Netflix was the peering agreement between Cogent (hosting netflix) and Comcast. There was never any other reason why Comcast users were receiving degraded service - this is confirmed by netflix themselves.

At the same time, with Net Neutrality being a hot topic, and a lot of Comcast users wondering what was going on with their Netflix, speculation was rampant. Even the media jumped on the bandwagon with a bunch of speculative articles full of misinformation designed mostly to stoke the fire. The thing is - Comcast wasn't ever throttling anything. Not only that, but they actually went out of their way to form an agreement with Netflix that bypassed the problem (cogent) in direct acknowledgment of the importance Netflix represents to Comcast subscribers. It's certainly better than the Verizon method of tackling the issue, which seems to be to simply ignore the issue while their users get terrible Netflix service.

ghost6303 said:
What happened is netflix had to directly pay extra to have their data treated not preferentially; but just the same as any other data that comcasts' customers would request.
Click to expand...

Netflix data was not being treated any differently than any other data that was crossing from Cogent's to Comcast's network. It's true that the vast majority of that traffic was likely netflix traffic, but that doesn't change the fact that this was a peering agreement issue rather than anything having to do with throttling or net neutrality.

ghost6303 said:
Data which Netflix is not the initiator of; meaning it is comcasts' customers who initiate the connection and request the data, so rightfully it is they that should foot the bill (as they already do). That is the definition of 'double dipping'.
Click to expand...

Again, bandwidth and hosting are basic needs that go back to the beginning of the internet. Netflix pays cogent for hosting and bandwidth. Comcast also provides hosting and bandwidth services, which many companies already pay for. Would you go through Comcast's data center and claim that they are double-dipping on every website, etc they are paid to provide hosting services for? Comcast has the right to charge for their hosting services just the same as any other hosting company would, and that reality doesn't change just because they also provide residential internet.

ghost6303 said:
Cell carriers have been charging 5 cents per txt message for decades; how would you feel about being charged by your ISP 5 cents per youtube video? Or half a cent per email? Or 1000 google searches per month free, then 2 cents per google search after that...? Or would it be so much easier for you, if you could pay a $flat/mo and be able to text as often as you want?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how your rant has anything to do with the topic at hand. The only one paying anything here is Netflix. The only thing they are paying for is bandwidth, which is something they were already paying for anyway (aka not a new expense for them). How does that have anything to do with consumer ISPs dramatically changing their end-user pricing?
 
It sets a bad example. Internet in chunks instead of bog standard flat out pricing. Verizon is basically drooling at the potential opportunity. I would rather have Government oversight frankly at this point via some kind of net neutrality rules. But because the NSA is eyeing both AT&T/Verizon as data centers for all of its stolen information both ISP's will likely ask them in return to tell the FCC to eat a bag of dicks so I doubt the Government will do anything about it.

Man.. I already pay through the roof for my Internet because I love the speed and unlimited bandwidth (well unlimited for my uses). Now its going to cost people like significantly more to retain the exact same service all because any opportunity these ISP's get to extract more without logical reason they practically hurl themselves towards such possibility.

Perhaps I'll look into a business line of some sort when the REAL pricing structure they've likely been masturbating over gets revealed or "leaked" and people who don't give a fuck about Net Neutrality suddenly start to care when their bill jumps up 50 percent so some CEO's can get increased bonuses.
 
Funny how money can fix a problem that the ISP's say isn't there, ain't it?
 
c@Nc3r said:
For those defending Comcast, is this going to make my 70mb Verizon FIOS stop stuttering on Netflix and hulu. If not then you can all STFU. Netflix shouldn't have to pay every ISP to give the service that the ISPs customers are already paying for.
Click to expand...

So you're saying they should instead continue to pay Cogent, who doesn't have the capacity to keep data running smoothly to other ISPs? You're saying that instead of paying Cogent, and instead directly paying the ISPs so that you get your video as fast as you want it, is something that shouldn't be done?

People seem to understand this issue with about the same frequency as people understood net neutrality.
 
No, Netflix isnt paying for bandwidth between Netflix and Comcast here, they are having to pay Comcast to stop throttling Netflix users that get their internet service from Comcast. So Comcast gets money from the ISP to customer connection AND Netflix is having to pay even more on top of that, so Comcast is being paid twice for every Comcast/Netflix customer. This is exactly what telecom companies fought for the right to do and won.

Now that other ISP's have seen that Netflix will pay ISP's who throttle Netflix traffic, I see the others doing the same to Netlfix. This is only the beginning and I see this tactic becoming industry standard practice.
 
Stiletto said:
So you're saying they should instead continue to pay Cogent, who doesn't have the capacity to keep data running smoothly to other ISPs? You're saying that instead of paying Cogent, and instead directly paying the ISPs so that you get your video as fast as you want it, is something that shouldn't be done?

People seem to understand this issue with about the same frequency as people understood net neutrality.
Click to expand...

Oh god, am I about to agree with Stiletto. FML.

People need to get educated on the issue here. There is no precedent. If anyone set a precedent for this situation, it was google and facebook. They've been paying for direct access for years. This is not new people.
 
Stiletto said:
So you're saying they should instead continue to pay Cogent, who doesn't have the capacity to keep data running smoothly to other ISPs? You're saying that instead of paying Cogent, and instead directly paying the ISPs so that you get your video as fast as you want it, is something that shouldn't be done?

People seem to understand this issue with about the same frequency as people understood net neutrality.
Click to expand...

I see this as a reward to Comcast for throttling Netflix. Verizon has their hands out and ready for a check now.
 
BoogerBomb said:
I see this as a reward to Comcast for throttling Netflix. Verizon has their hands out and ready for a check now.
Click to expand...

Do you have any proof of Comcast throttling Netflix, or are you just repeating conjecture that people on the internet keep pulling out of their ass with zero evidence?

Verizon wants to stop sending a check to Cogent. Why is it that you seem to have zero knowledge or interest in them?
 
Stiletto said:
Do you have any proof of Comcast throttling Netflix, or are you just repeating conjecture that people on the internet keep pulling out of their ass with zero evidence?

Verizon wants to stop sending a check to Cogent. Why is it that you seem to have zero knowledge or interest in them?
Click to expand...

I understand that ISP's are wanting everyone involved in the path to the customer to pay for a connection the customer is already paying for.
 
BoogerBomb said:
I understand that ISP's are wanting everyone involved in the path to the customer to pay for a connection the customer is already paying for.
Click to expand...

Yes, Netflix has to pay to upload content just like everyone else does.The don't get free bandwidth. This isn't new. This isn't some surprising phenomenon Comcast just starting charging for when no one else has. Bandwidth isn't free for Netflix or you. Instead of Netflix paying a separate ISP (Cogent), they are instead paying Comcast. This has the added benefit of being connected more directly to the consumers since Cogent is more of an enterprise/hosting ISP. But continue to put your head in the sand.
 
obs said:
Yes, Netflix has to pay to upload content just like everyone else does.The don't get free bandwidth. This isn't new. This isn't some surprising phenomenon Comcast just starting charging for when no one else has. Bandwidth isn't free for Netflix or you. Instead of Netflix paying a separate ISP (Cogent), they are instead paying Comcast. This has the added benefit of being connected more directly to the consumers since Cogent is more of an enterprise/hosting ISP. But continue to put your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

So Cogent owns the connection between the Netflix datacenter and the internet?
 
BoogerBomb said:
I understand that ISP's are wanting everyone involved in the path to the customer to pay for a connection the customer is already paying for.
Click to expand...

And I guess the only ISPs worthy of derision or criticism are those we've heard of. Any other actual ISPs who are collecting actual checks and actually failing to provide enough bandwidth and actually double-dipping, but we haven't heard of, are to be left out of the conversation?
 
If Comcast is installing a physical connection to the Netflix source then this is an understandable decision to pay for that. If this is paying for the routing then that is a problem for me because whats to stop them from doing it to other companies?
 
BoogerBomb said:
If Comcast is installing a physical connection to the Netflix source then this is an understandable decision to pay for that. If this is paying for the routing then that is a problem for me because whats to stop them from doing it to other companies?
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase that second sentence.

If this is Netflix having to pay for preferrential routing then that is a problem for me. I think that would be akin to Kyle having to pay destination ISP's for better routing for every one of their customers who accesses HardForum/HardOCP.
 
BoogerBomb said:
Let me rephrase that second sentence.

If this is Netflix having to pay for preferrential routing then that is a problem for me. I think that would be akin to Kyle having to pay destination ISP's for better routing for every one of their customers who accesses HardForum/HardOCP.
Click to expand...

No, this is Netflix paying for a direct connection. Not preferential routing.
 
BoogerBomb said:
If Comcast is installing a physical connection to the Netflix source then this is an understandable decision to pay for that. If this is paying for the routing then that is a problem for me because whats to stop them from doing it to other companies?
Click to expand...

They are cutting out Cogent and putting Comcast in its place for the purposes of delivering data to Comcast. So, yes, it is a "physical" connection.
 
Stiletto said:
They are cutting out Cogent and putting Comcast in its place for the purposes of delivering data to Comcast. So, yes, it is a "physical" connection.
Click to expand...

I view this whole thing like 99.99% of the people do, Netflix has a physical connection to the internet and its the job of the company providing that physical connection to send the packets on their way and to charge Netflix the appropriate price for doing so.
 
BoogerBomb said:
I view this whole thing like 99.99% of the people do, Netflix has a physical connection to the internet and its the job of the company providing that physical connection to send the packets on their way and to charge Netflix the appropriate price for doing so.
Click to expand...

Right, but Cogent was failing to do so. So now they're cutting out the middleman for Comcast. I'd imagine they're going to do the same to Verizon shortly.
 
Jorona said:
Right, but Cogent was failing to do so. So now they're cutting out the middleman for Comcast. I'd imagine they're going to do the same to Verizon shortly.
Click to expand...

Actually they will now have two middlemen if I understand right because the physical connection to Cogent is still there for routing to other ISP's and there will be a new one for routing to Comcast customers.

That means that there is only a limited number of networks they can do this for since most places usually only have one or two ISP's to choose from.
 
BoogerBomb said:
Actually they will now have two middlemen if I understand right because the physical connection to Cogent is still there for routing to other ISP's and there will be a new one for routing to Comcast customers.

That means that there is only a limited number of networks they can do this for since most places usually only have one or two ISP's to choose from.
Click to expand...

Eh, not really

Before it Went Netflix -> Cogent -> Local ISP -> Local ISP Customer. Insert whatever ISP you pay.

If it's a Comcast customer now it just goes Netflix -> Comcast -> Customer.
 
So Netflix is its own Local ISP and connects to the backbone itself and instead of paying Cogent to connect the Netlfix "ISP" to the Comcast network does so itself meaning that for traffic to other networks, Netflix's "ISP" still has to connect to Cogent to get to those networks.
 
Who ever made the farm analogy...you do know that big companies (and oil tycoons like T Boone) are trying to privatize water right? T Boone bought the biggest piece of land in Texas, who has a law that if there is water under your property you can use it for free. Well this big piece of land he bought he right over the largest Aquifer in the US and he is pumping it dry. http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/12/16/americas-water-supply-will-soon-become-slim-pickens/

So that is exactly what is going to happen. Just like this- with Comcast taking over TWC they own most of the interwebz..now they are selling it back to us one MB at a time.
 
BoogerBomb said:
No, Netflix isnt paying for bandwidth between Netflix and Comcast here, they are having to pay Comcast to stop throttling Netflix users that get their internet service from Comcast. So Comcast gets money from the ISP to customer connection AND Netflix is having to pay even more on top of that, so Comcast is being paid twice for every Comcast/Netflix customer. This is exactly what telecom companies fought for the right to do and won.

Now that other ISP's have seen that Netflix will pay ISP's who throttle Netflix traffic, I see the others doing the same to Netlfix. This is only the beginning and I see this tactic becoming industry standard practice.
Click to expand...

So Netflix is paying Comcast to stop doing something that Comcast swears it wasn't doing in the first place.

When people first noticed hulu and netflix slowing down, Comcast swore up and down that it wasn't throttling anyone, and blamed the problem on "network congestion"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top