Netflix Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Slowdown

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You know, crap like this is going to eventually force Netflix to raise their rates. And why does Comcast need more money from Netflix anyway? Aren't they collecting a ton of money from subscribers? :(

For the last several months, Comcast Internet customers have complained about a drop in quality of the Netflix streams being delivered to their homes, and Netflix’s own data showed a massive decline in connection speeds starting in October. But today, the two companies announced they have reached a “mutually beneficial” agreement that will hopefully turn that trend around.
Click to expand...
 
Fuck Comcast. Good grief. Fuck domestic ISP's in general. Charge customers an arm and a leg, gouge them on bandwidth caps, then turn around a charge individual companies distributing content as well.
 
I think it's pretty nice for Netflix to do this, but shitty of Comcast to make them do it.
 
This could be a good thing in that ... with them re-writing the new net neutrality framework, they may include language that forces these types of payouts to be refunded and or banned going forward.

It absolutely is serious bullshit. So now all ISP's can take a look at netflix traffic or other streaming traffic and then allow their quality of service to degrade and then force whoever to pay a ransom to fix those issues. WOW ........ just wow
 
No. why would you do this? Fuckin' A netflix. Don't let them wring your neck like that.
 
in Milwaukee/south east wisconsin we won't have that option soon if they merge with TW:
a. slow dsl
b. TWC no caps, 10-20x faster than most dsl service in are area including ATT

once we have caps, :(
 
We have toll roads in most cities and states ... for good or bad this is no different ... you can stay on the frontage road and hit the speed bumps and traffic lights or you can pay to access the express lane ... since Comcast owns the lines to the house they are entitled to control how fast they want you to drive on their road ;)
 
everybody knew this would happen once net neutrality is thrown out of the window, but capitalism is sooo great and anyone who doesn't enjoy to bend over for corporations that form a quasi monopoly is a communist.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Seriously, if comcast is that bad, just switch ISPs to someone else. Netzero is a lot less expensive once you buy a modem.

http://www.netzero.net/dialup
Click to expand...

187339473_640.jpg
:p
 
jroe52 said:
in Milwaukee/south east wisconsin we won't have that option soon if they merge with TW:
a. slow dsl
b. TWC no caps, 10-20x faster than most dsl service in are area including ATT

once we have caps, :(
Click to expand...

Same here in Cincinnati. Makes you want to cry knowing that TWC was already bad enough only to be thrown into the jaws of the devil with Comcrap. DSL is not broadband here and the phone company is not expanding their fiber optic service to ghetto neighborhoods like mine.
 
I guess...
I'm not a fan of this...
From what I understand they are going to be paying comcast for a direct connection to thier network, instead of Cogentco for bandwidth to thier customers.

So no need to raise rates.

I still don't like this though... it doesn't give me a nice warm feeling, and mostly fills me with dread for the future.
 
One more reason to not subscribe to Netflix. They have a content shortage problem, yet they take subscriber money and hand it over to to the very people with whom you just cancelled your last subscription. Between this and secretly cropping movies that were not intended to be cropped in order to save bandwidth, Netflix is certainly no pro-consumer company like they have been starting out.
 
Now don't get me wrong - I still hate the whole system and the ridiculous amount of price gouging going on with internet, TV, cell phones, etc. in the USA.

That said, it is somewhat reasonable to expect payment when you have to install a large amount of hardware - to connect to someone's large bandwidth hog. Now you would think that we, their customers, are more likely to spend on their services if they connected to netflix - and that revenue is more than sufficient to cover the costs. Ideally, both the users and Netflix would pay - but not at the ridiculous rates we are now paying.
 
this is the same reason why tv service providers charge so much, the content providers are forcing them to pay more and more.

This is the great thing about the content and service providers being one of the same (Google for example with Fiber & their online services).
 
But wait, just last week they were swearing up and down that they don't throttle!

I pay for a 50Mb connection and all the planets have to be in line for me to get a damn hd stream.

With the purchase of TWC, Comcast and the others need to be regulated period. I don't care about your political views but we can all agree we cant live in a country with just one isp. Where will this end?
 
There is a lot of misinformation going around about this. The issue at hand is simply one of whether Netflix should pay for direct connections to providers such as Comcast or not. Netflix was already paying Cogent to route their traffic to Comcast, and now they are going to be paying Comcast instead for a direct connection. Personally I don't see a problem with this as Netflix was already paying Cogent for this type of service, and Cogent failed to do an acceptable job. There seems to be a lot of blame being pointed at Comcast for forcing this deal when that is not what happened at all. It may even be the case that Netflix will now be paying Comcast less than what they paid Cogent.
Don't get me wrong, I despise Comcast and their shady business practices. But It's still a shame that there are so many ignorant articles like this circulating around. I expect for the media to try and remain objective even when it's concerning a horrible company like Comcast.
 
While I am happy that my Netflix will work better, I am also very very concerned that this sets a hugely dangerous precedent.
 
Wow. Sounds like a mob movie. "Pay us, and your data will get protection". Then, the customer ends up paying. It's like negotiating with terrorists. Netflix did that. Now, they know they can get their way, and they will again and again.

You can tell there is a lot of money in play with a lot of people. The consumers are speaking out, yet nothing happens. Always in favor of the near monopoly to rape the consumer.
 
The inevitable has begun. Other ISP will join in and next thing you know. Internet service is now tiered.
base internet
access to webmail (gmail, yahoo, etc.) +$$$
access to Hulu, Amazon Prime, Netflix +$$$$$$
access to youtube +$$$
access to ESPN +$$$
access to gaming services (steam, uplay, Battle.net, etc.) +$$$
access to social networking +$$$

decrease available bandwidth, lower caps, squeeze every last penny out of the consumers who have no other broadband ISP available.

Need I go on?
 
I wonder how long it will be until Netflix starts putting advertisements in their streams to cover these added expenses?

I still get confused when analyzing situations like this one. If there was no Netflix, or other online content providers, how many people would pay for high speed Internet service packages or the various "boost" variants that cost additional money? Isn't the access to content what encourages people to sign up with the ISP in the first place?

The argument that the ISPs need to charge more is largely a function of greed. Many of these companies turn huge profits every year, accept government money (in the form of direct subsidies or tax breaks) because it is supposedly not profitable to expand/upgrade their infrastructure, and shut down independent/municipal startups that attempt to provide service to areas the major ISPs are not serving in the first place. They are playing the game incredibly well already and when the rules of the game don't suit them to an arbitrary level that they define themselves, they just have the rules changed...
 
MrCaffeineX said:
I wonder how long it will be until Netflix starts putting advertisements in their streams to cover these added expenses?

I still get confused when analyzing situations like this one. If there was no Netflix, or other online content providers, how many people would pay for high speed Internet service packages or the various "boost" variants that cost additional money? Isn't the access to content what encourages people to sign up with the ISP in the first place?

The argument that the ISPs need to charge more is largely a function of greed. Many of these companies turn huge profits every year, accept government money (in the form of direct subsidies or tax breaks) because it is supposedly not profitable to expand/upgrade their infrastructure, and shut down independent/municipal startups that attempt to provide service to areas the major ISPs are not serving in the first place. They are playing the game incredibly well already and when the rules of the game don't suit them to an arbitrary level that they define themselves, they just have the rules changed...
Click to expand...


Honestly, they actually don't do as well as many think. I have to assume that it is largely due to mismanagement and greedy payouts to shareholders and top executives, because ISP's in other countries turn larger profits, while offering cheaper, faster and truly unlimited internet.

If this continues, I may have to move back to Sweden!
 
First off, for everyone that keeps using the phrase "double dipping" for this scenario, please just stop, you are embarrassing yourselves. Read up on how the system is setup and how all these ISPs, providers, etc have to do business. They are not milking both sides, the problem is both sides of a connection are using different ISPs and the ISPs are not setup with the same content delivery. Cogent is trying to force the hand of other ISPs so that they do not have to upgrade, or can continue their bullying methods of buying up small ISPs and scaring away subscribers from larger ones. Cogent refuses to operate under the same rules all the other ISPs operate under. Thus the reason the other ISPs have such a problem with them and are now fighting back. Netflix and its customers just happen to be caught in the middle of all of this.

temujin987 said:
everybody knew this would happen once net neutrality is thrown out of the window, but capitalism is sooo great and anyone who doesn't enjoy to bend over for corporations that form a quasi monopoly is a communist.
Click to expand...

This isn't and has never been a net neutrality problem. The net neutrality law that was in place for a short time had no effect on this. It even states that in the article. Why people keep trying to link it to net neutrality is beyond me. Please read up on the actual issue, it has nothing to do with monoplies, communism, or net neutrality. And seriously? Communism? Just ridiculous.

SixFootDuo said:
This could be a good thing in that ... with them re-writing the new net neutrality framework, they may include language that forces these types of payouts to be refunded and or banned going forward.

It absolutely is serious bullshit. So now all ISP's can take a look at netflix traffic or other streaming traffic and then allow their quality of service to degrade and then force whoever to pay a ransom to fix those issues. WOW ........ just wow
Click to expand...

That isn't a very good idea. First off, no one "allowed their quality of service to degrade". They simply stuck by the peering agreement that was in place. The one Cogent has been abusing for quite some time. What happened here, is Netflix is finally tired of the BS Cogent is forcing them into, and so they are starting to branch out. There is a lot of other BS involved though and tied up in agreements which makes it more difficult for both Netflix and Comcast to reach an agreement and even harder for Verizon and Netflix to reach an agreement. The biggest problem is with Cogent, who currently has a contract with Netflix to be their provider, but who does not want to pay to deliver the content to Netflix's customers. Cogent has the obligation here, not Comcast, not Verizon, not TWC, not AT&T, not mom&pop ISP. If Cogent is unable to deliver the content to the end customer, then they should be upgrading or paying for some way to guarantee that content gets delivered, but they aren't. Not only are they not currently doing, they are going out of their way to refuse to do it.

Trying to force parity on ISPs will not work, because they are not close to being equal. You can't force a larger ISP to constantly upgrade their equipment because some streaming service or hosted service chooses a small time ISP and then garners a huge demand for their product where the small ISP cannot deliver and must piggy back on other ISPs. This was the whole reason for transit agreements. If the hosting ISP cannot upgrade their network to get it out to the end customers, then should pay someone else that can do it. The hosting ISP is already charging the service to be hosted on their network, part of that money should then be directing on being able to deliver that service to the end customers.

GearChoices said:
One more reason to not subscribe to Netflix. They have a content shortage problem, yet they take subscriber money and hand it over to to the very people with whom you just cancelled your last subscription. Between this and secretly cropping movies that were not intended to be cropped in order to save bandwidth, Netflix is certainly no pro-consumer company like they have been starting out.
Click to expand...

If by handing it over to Cogent who is causing this entire problem in the first place, then yes I completely agree. If by handing money over to Comcast to help fix the problem, then I absolutely do not agree. While I am not really a fan of Comcast, they are doing business the way the system is setup to do business. As for Netflix caring about their customers? I think trying to find an outside solution to the conflict between Cogent and the other ISPs is exactly the kind of thing that helps Netflix customers. Netflix is caught in the middle and trying to find ways to fix the problem. The best way would probably be to change their main provider, however, given how much data they are now streaming, their costs would probably go up quite a bit forcing them to charge customers more.

People have to remember that when Netflix first started streaming, they were a small time operation in that field. There wasn't nearly as much data and not nearly as many people had enough bandwidth to make it worth it. So Netflix wasn't being charged much for hosting its streaming service. Now most people have far more bandwidth and availability to the content. So the demand and thus the cost for streaming their service has skyrocketed. There is all this talk about this crap now, but at some point Netflix is going to have to change their deal with Cogent, or go with a new provider and then most if not all of this BS will go away.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
I wonder how long it will be until Netflix starts putting advertisements in their streams to cover these added expenses?

I still get confused when analyzing situations like this one. If there was no Netflix, or other online content providers, how many people would pay for high speed Internet service packages or the various "boost" variants that cost additional money? Isn't the access to content what encourages people to sign up with the ISP in the first place?

The argument that the ISPs need to charge more is largely a function of greed. Many of these companies turn huge profits every year, accept government money (in the form of direct subsidies or tax breaks) because it is supposedly not profitable to expand/upgrade their infrastructure, and shut down independent/municipal startups that attempt to provide service to areas the major ISPs are not serving in the first place. They are playing the game incredibly well already and when the rules of the game don't suit them to an arbitrary level that they define themselves, they just have the rules changed...
Click to expand...

The SECOND I see and AD in netflix, is the day I'll drop my subscription. It's why I don't have Hulu.
Hulu could but truly great, but they don't have an ad-free version.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040650628 said:
Honestly, they actually don't do as well as many think. I have to assume that it is largely due to mismanagement and greedy payouts to shareholders and top executives, because ISP's in other countries turn larger profits, while offering cheaper, faster and truly unlimited internet.

If this continues, I may have to move back to Sweden!
Click to expand...

Other countries have completely different systems. Btw, Sweden has a fairly nice setup, but it also has its corruption. And its not a 1 to 1 comparison, because Sweden's infrastructure is all owned by one company. That company than leases the bandwidth out to ISPs who deliver content to the end customer. So when there are problems with bandwidth, the main company has to upgrade the infrastructure, they then renegotiate leasing deals with all the ISPs to recoup the cost. However, its a private monopoly, something that is severely frowned upon in this country.
 
NoOther said:
Trying to force parity on ISPs will not work, because they are not close to being equal. You can't force a larger ISP to constantly upgrade their equipment because some streaming service or hosted service chooses a small time ISP and then garners a huge demand for their product where the small ISP cannot deliver and must piggy back on other ISPs. This was the whole reason for transit agreements. If the hosting ISP cannot upgrade their network to get it out to the end customers, then should pay someone else that can do it. The hosting ISP is already charging the service to be hosted on their network, part of that money should then be directing on being able to deliver that service to the end customers.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree. This is just defending their double dipping. Peering agreements need to disappear completely.

I pay my service provider for access to the internet. The internet includes Cogents networks, and every other IP out there. When my ISP upgrades their equipment it is to provide ME with the data I am requesting.

My monthly ISP fee should cover any and all data I request to my IP address from anywhere on the greater net. ANY other compensation from any other source amounts to double dipping, and is just plain wrong.

This may not have been in the defeated Net neutrality bill, but it should have been. traffic needs to flow freely across all network borders in order for the internet to be free and fair, and it is the responsibility of MY ISP to provide enough capacity to satisfy the demands of my and my fellow subscribers traffic regardless of where it is coming from or going to.

No, they should not be responsible for other networks (like cogent) internal structure. That is the problem of those networks, and the companies that have contracted with them for service, but their responsibility to me as a subscriber is to make sure that they have enough capacity to satisfy the demand up to EVERY interface with another network. Otherwise they aren't providing true internet service. They are providing access to some subset of the internet, which is unacceptable.

If the current internet model would fall apart without peering agreements, then so be it. Let's tear it down and recreate it the way it's supposed to work, hopefully without the involvement of such dinosaurs as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, who do nothing but ruin everything for everyone.
 
I didn't see any comment in the article on WHEN these changes will be taking effect.

Is this a 'this year' sort of thing? Or 'some time in the next decade we'll be moving in this direction'?
 
So now that Netflix is paying Comcast, the data caps will go away right? Since the content provider is supposedly footing the bill?
 
I wonder how expensive the streaming subscription will be in a year or two after Netflix caves to every major ISP in the US?
 
While I think the ISP's are just dead wrong in what they are doing it seems to me Netflix may have to make some changes to avoid this going forward.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to introduce some distributed model, like Sportify uses where while you are watching something, you are simultaneously uploading it to nearby watchers of the same content.

It would not eliminate the peer point traffic, but it would certainly reduce it significantly.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040650682 said:
Completely disagree. This is just defending their double dipping. Peering agreements need to disappear completely.

I pay my service provider for access to the internet. The internet includes Cogents networks, and every other IP out there. When my ISP upgrades their equipment it is to provide ME with the data I am requesting.

My monthly ISP fee should cover any and all data I request to my IP address from anywhere on the greater net. ANY other compensation from any other source amounts to double dipping, and is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement - having worked at Comcast myself in the engineering dept, I know what it takes to get the "bandwidth" you think should be fair and equal to everyone. Well, it's not. You have core routers that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars by themselves, and then you have to buy the modules separately; the individual 10Gb/100Gb fiber modules cost thousands by themselves. Then you have the multi-million dollar termination equipment (the big CMTS') that your cable modem talks to, so it can access the internet.

Now, compound that with the non-core equipment that gets upgraded EVERY NIGHT. Plus they were also working on replacing the Cisco 7200s with new Cisco ASRs, Literally non-stop upgrades throughout the whole network to increase capacity, every night. Then you have to pay the network engineers working on this stuff every night, and the field engineers swapping the equipment. There's thousands of routers, tens of thousands of modules, new fiber runs, new equipment. This shit adds up really really fast.

What your fee covers is access into the network. Peering agreements with other customers are for a specific share of the bandwidth. You think Cogent has unlimited bandwidth? This is why Netflix is now peering directly with Comcast.

Now I don't think certain services should be throttled at all, that's not my point. But this is not double dipping, and no your fee does not cover unlimited bandwidth to every server in the internet. If Netflix is using up more BW than they have available, well then they need pay to receive a bigger share of the pipe.
 
I really dislike comcast. They rolled out the 300GB cap in my market and their speeds suck.

I really, really want Google to roll fiber out here. We are on the list of 34 cities so here's hoping.
 
Wow, a bunch of bitching from this cro[H]wd, welcome to the FREE MARKET (of near monopolies) bitches. Suck it up, walk it off, because you're going to be paying a lot more in the future. :rolleyes:

Imagine that, what a business. I play middle man and charge the buyer a fee AND the seller a fee .... guess Comcast/Verizon fancy themselves ... EBay!! :eek::p
 
Zarathustra[H];1040650682 said:
Completely disagree. This is just defending their double dipping. Peering agreements need to disappear completely.
Click to expand...

First off, there is no double dipping and continuing to use that term just shows you don't understand how the infrastructure in the US works.

Zarathustra[H];1040650682 said:
I pay my service provider for access to the internet. The internet includes Cogents networks, and every other IP out there. When my ISP upgrades their equipment it is to provide ME with the data I am requesting.
Click to expand...

Access is correct. You are getting access to the internet, including access to Cogent. When your ISP upgrades their equipment it is to help carry traffic across there network. Their first responsibility is to the people paying for hosting services, which is a different fee than just access. They have an obligation to make sure the services and companies that are hosted on their network can get their data to their end customers. If you notice on your agreement for access they do not guarantee your speeds. They say they can deliver up to those speeds.

Zarathustra[H];1040650682 said:
My monthly ISP fee should cover any and all data I request to my IP address from anywhere on the greater net. ANY other compensation from any other source amounts to double dipping, and is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

No, it should not and no it does not. Even in your precious Sweden it doesn't work that way. The main telecom that owns the infrastructure charges the ISP for the bandwidth to host their services, and then you get charged for access to said services. Then other companies get charged money to host their services there as well as access to other services.

Zarathustra[H];1040650682 said:
This may not have been in the defeated Net neutrality bill, but it should have been. traffic needs to flow freely across all network borders in order for the internet to be free and fair, and it is the responsibility of MY ISP to provide enough capacity to satisfy the demands of my and my fellow subscribers traffic regardless of where it is coming from or going to.
Click to expand...

No it shouldn't because there is not parity in the infrastructure layout here. If there was, then it would be fair. If you were to replace the infrastructure with a single entity that is responsible for maintaining it, then you would have a more valid argument.

Zarathustra[H];1040650682 said:
No, they should not be responsible for other networks (like cogent) internal structure. That is the problem of those networks, and the companies that have contracted with them for service, but their responsibility to me as a subscriber is to make sure that they have enough capacity to satisfy the demand up to EVERY interface with another network. Otherwise they aren't providing true internet service. They are providing access to some subset of the internet, which is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

They have the capacity to satisfy the demands, they do not have the obligation to carry another network's traffic or fulfill the demands on that network. Again, it is not a unified infrastructure, you cannot force one network to meet the demands of another network, that is not equality.

Zarathustra[H];1040650682 said:
If the current internet model would fall apart without peering agreements, then so be it. Let's tear it down and recreate it the way it's supposed to work, hopefully without the involvement of such dinosaurs as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, who do nothing but ruin everything for everyone.
Click to expand...

Those companies are not dinosaurs, they are merely doing business as it is structured here. If you want to replace the current system with something else, that is a totally acceptable complaint, one which I whole heartedly agree with. But understand there are extreme costs to such a measure, especially in today's world. And many of those companies you just commented on would very much be involved in the process, as they already have most of the groundwork laid out for such a feat.
 
The cat is truly out of the bag now.
I expect to hear stories about this accelerating in the future.

What happens when Cox, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, and Rodgers come knocking? Billion dollar pay outs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top