Netflix CEO Rips Comcast On Net Neutrality

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Netflix CEO Reed Hastings is weighing in on Comcast's Xfinity Xbox app. After reading his post / rant, it actually hit me...Reed Hastings uses Hulu? :D

When I watch video on my Xbox from three of these four apps, it counts against my Comcast internet cap. When I watch through Comcast's Xfinity app, however, it does not count against my Comcast internet cap. For example, if I watch last night's SNL episode on my Xbox through the Hulu app, it eats up about one gigabyte of my cap, but if I watch that same episode through the Xfinity Xbox app, it doesn't use up my cap at all.
Click to expand...
 
When I was notified about xfinity a few months ago, it seemed like it was more expensive then my direct tv would be while getting less (and going against my cap). I guess it doesn't go against my cap but it still seems like something that costs way too much.
 
And people said we were paranoid when we warned them about preferential service bandwidth...
 
Eff Reed Hastings! Netflix supports CISPA so his hypocrisy is blatant! What a blowhard!
 
[LG]BLaRG;1038614509 said:
Eff Reed Hastings! Netflix supports CISPA so his hypocrisy is blatant! What a blowhard!
Click to expand...

CISPA, while terrible, has nothing to do with bandwidth treatment elements of net neutrality.
 
Pretty odd considering Fancast is based off of Hulu in the first place.
 
From all the stuff I've read about Reed Hastings, he seems like a pretty shady character, trying to paint himself as a pillar of virtue but falling short in his comments/behavior. The comcast explanation of different connections smells a little fishy to me. That's like saying, this data connection on port XXXXX does not count against your bandwidth cap because it didn't go to you through the internet. How did it get to my house in the first place fucktards??? This is a slippery slope we're on.
 
How fast... not how much...

Data caps are ridiculous. You want to make me pay for how much of the pipe I use...cool. However, don't try and sell that there are only a limited number of "GBs" to go around.

This is what needs to be regulated.
 
The issue is that, if this sort of thing continues, it allows Comcast and others to give their own stuff preferential treatment which will causes services not run by cable/internet companies to face an uphill climb. So, the Netflix's of the world (whether you like them or not) will have a harder and harder time competing with the services run by the guys that own the physical line to your house. They'll just make theirs more attractive by virtue of owning the network. This was the same thing Microsoft got into trouble for by bundling software (primarily IE) with the operating system. By owning the system you can give yourself preferential position and keep competitors out. This is why your cable bill right now is a bloody fortune and if these guys (Comcast and others) get their way it'll stay that way.

Right now we're on the cusp of changing the way media is delivered to the public. If Netflix and other cable/internet independent services are squeezed out by the cable/internet providers by using their control of the wires to do it ... we're all screwed in the long run.
 
I agree with Reed Hastings, it's bullshit. Oddly enough countries like Australia do allow services to consume bandwidth without effecting the cap. Though bandwidth cap is bullshit, Comcast should start allowing 3rd party services to not effect the cap. This responsibility falls onto ISP's if they wanna start playing this game.
 
Ashbringer said:
I agree with Reed Hastings, it's bullshit. Oddly enough countries like Australia do allow services to consume bandwidth without effecting the cap. Though bandwidth cap is bullshit, Comcast should start allowing 3rd party services to not effect the cap. This responsibility falls onto ISP's if they wanna start playing this game.
Click to expand...

The problem is, them doing that is a conflict of interest for cable providers like Comcast, when they are allowing services like Netflix and Hulu to get "free" bandwidth while undercutting their cable TV subscriptions.

I agree with you totally, but I just don't think it will happen.
 
I don't see the problem.

As a comcast customer, I am on comcasts network. I don't go right out to the internet, I go through comcast. That means anything local, and by local I mean anything on the comcast network, only costs to go from comcast to me. My guess is that is very, very inexpensive.

When I use something like HULU or Netflix, I have to pull that content through the internet. Now I'm consuming part of comcasts internet connection, which is actually more expensive for them.


Instead of bitching about the model, he should try working with the ISPs and get some sort of Caching servers in place for the movies. If the end user never had to go out over the internet to get their movies, it would be cheaper for the ISPs to deliver them.

I wasn't aware that Xfinity didn't count towards your cap. That fact actually makes it a little more attractive to me.
 
MavericK96 said:
The problem is, them doing that is a conflict of interest for cable providers like Comcast, when they are allowing services like Netflix and Hulu to get "free" bandwidth while undercutting their cable TV subscriptions.

I agree with you totally, but I just don't think it will happen.
Click to expand...

But in the majority of their markets, ISPs like Comcast and Charter are given exclusive monopolies to internet service.

It is, therefore, inappropriate for them to discriminate on their internet traffic regardless of whether or not it impacts their own products.
If they were solely an ISP, and service was a competitive market then this would be a non-issue.
 
Demon10000 said:
I don't see the problem.

As a comcast customer, I am on comcasts network. I don't go right out to the internet, I go through comcast. That means anything local, and by local I mean anything on the comcast network, only costs to go from comcast to me. My guess is that is very, very inexpensive.

When I use something like HULU or Netflix, I have to pull that content through the internet. Now I'm consuming part of comcasts internet connection, which is actually more expensive for them.


Instead of bitching about the model, he should try working with the ISPs and get some sort of Caching servers in place for the movies. If the end user never had to go out over the internet to get their movies, it would be cheaper for the ISPs to deliver them.

I wasn't aware that Xfinity didn't count towards your cap. That fact actually makes it a little more attractive to me.
Click to expand...


Yes, and this is the crux of the issue.

It is very likely that comcast is, by law, your only wired cable broadband option.
 
This reminds me of the anti-trust against MS back in the day. Because they were providing certain programs with their OS, it meant that other products could not compete fairly. If Comcast is not charging bandwidth for their services, but are charging data for other services, it gives xfinity an unfair advantage over competing hulu, netflix, and youtube.
 
Demon10000 said:
I don't see the problem.

As a comcast customer, I am on comcasts network. I don't go right out to the internet, I go through comcast. That means anything local, and by local I mean anything on the comcast network, only costs to go from comcast to me. My guess is that is very, very inexpensive.

When I use something like HULU or Netflix, I have to pull that content through the internet. Now I'm consuming part of comcasts internet connection, which is actually more expensive for them.


Instead of bitching about the model, he should try working with the ISPs and get some sort of Caching servers in place for the movies. If the end user never had to go out over the internet to get their movies, it would be cheaper for the ISPs to deliver them.

I wasn't aware that Xfinity didn't count towards your cap. That fact actually makes it a little more attractive to me.
Click to expand...

Xfinity TV is formerly known as Fancast. They use Hulu to stream their shows. It's not exactly local.
 
Bit confused here...

I thought the original 250GB limit from comcast was to combat node or "last mile" congestion... To keep heavy users from clogging up their neighbors (shared) connections.

Why is it now ok to clog up those same connections just because the bandwidth originates on the comcast network instead of coming from a peer link...
 
Demon10000 said:
I don't see the problem.

As a comcast customer, I am on comcasts network. I don't go right out to the internet, I go through comcast. That means anything local, and by local I mean anything on the comcast network, only costs to go from comcast to me. My guess is that is very, very inexpensive.
Click to expand...

Which is the problem. The cost to Comcast is not the issue. The issue is that because Comcast is delivering content AND the connection they can undercut everyone else that is just offering content. Since the government won't let everyone run wires along pole lines and wireless spectrum isn't widely available ... the people controlling those things aren't supposed to be allowed to abuse their position. If they're allowed to make it easier for their content offerings to be dominant then it continually drives services like Netflix out of business and consumer choice is eroded drastically. Couple this with areas where only one TV/internet service is available and you have a monopoly economy where they can force out any competition.
 
-Dragon- said:
Bit confused here...

I thought the original 250GB limit from comcast was to combat node or "last mile" congestion... To keep heavy users from clogging up their neighbors (shared) connections.

Why is it now ok to clog up those same connections just because the bandwidth originates on the comcast network instead of coming from a peer link...
Click to expand...

I don't think the cap was ever about providing better service to lesser users. It was pretty much just to curb "heavy" downloaders from "using up" Comcast's bandwidth so they can make more money.
 
The issue is that because Comcast is delivering content AND the connection they can undercut everyone else that is just offering content.
Click to expand...

I'm in an area where I can only get comcast, so I understand your monopoly comments. It sure would be nice to have a choice, some sort of competition to keep the price down. However, I don't.

They are delivering "their" content. Since you area already paying for the vehicle to get the content to you, it's obviously going to be cheaper for them to get the content to you.



Why is it now ok to clog up those same connections just because the bandwidth originates on the comcast network instead of coming from a peer link...
Click to expand...

I don't work for comcast, and I have no insight into this. However, my company delivers training videos to our sites that have small network connections (some as small as 768Kb). We worry about these small sites getting saturated as the bandwith is important for them to get the work done.

To reduce the footprint of the streaming video, we have content engines setup at each site. These engines deliver the content to the user seamlessly from our intranet site. User sees nothing, but it is a hell of a lot less of an impact when they watch one becuase it doesn't pull it over their WAN connection.


I would bet that comcast is caching everything locally to get video to you, thus saving them the expense of actually going out to the internet to get the video. I'm sure this is saving them a considerable amount of money in bandwith, and freeing up more for other uses.




Should we bitch that Amazon has a cloud drive. If I buy music from them, it goes to the cloud drive but doesn't count towards my limit. However, if I upload music from another provider, it does count? Same thing -- the content is cheaper to give to you if it's already local to the provider.
 
doesnt matter were its "cached" unless its being cached at the node level
since the whole point of caps was the last mile was over loaded
 
The best counter argument I've seen thus far relates to the claim of Intranet bandwidth. If I upload files to someone else on comcast without leaving their network, then that data shouldn't be counted against the cap either. If I mirror a video collection onto a friends pc I could easily generate 1TB of traffic a month... If Intranet bandwidth isn't an issue then Comcast should have no problems with that.... ;)
 
Demon10000 said:
Should we bitch that Amazon has a cloud drive. If I buy music from them, it goes to the cloud drive but doesn't count towards my limit. However, if I upload music from another provider, it does count? Same thing -- the content is cheaper to give to you if it's already local to the provider.
Click to expand...

Not a good comparison... These are 2 services that are not directly dependent on each other.

I can use Amazon cloud service and NOT purchase an mp3 from them, I can also purchase mp3 from Amazon and not use their cloud service.

Now if Amazon was the only company you could get cloud service from (say similar to cable/internet monopolies), then you would have a similar situation.
 
while im no fan of comcast and even less of a fan of caps, the reality of the situation is that this is dependant on where the data is coming from. IF the data for the xfinity app is generated within comcasts own network and never leaves comcasts network, then it should not count against the cap.

hulu, netflix hbogo & services like that are not generated by comcast staying 100% within the comcast network and as such, yes, they should count against a rediculous cap that shouldnt exist in the first place.
 
Elios said:
doesnt matter were its "cached" unless its being cached at the node level
since the whole point of caps was the last mile was over loaded
Click to expand...

As I said before, don't kid yourself into thinking that was the primary reasoning behind the caps.
 
bman212121 said:
The best counter argument I've seen thus far relates to the claim of Intranet bandwidth. If I upload files to someone else on comcast without leaving their network, then that data shouldn't be counted against the cap either. If I mirror a video collection onto a friends pc I could easily generate 1TB of traffic a month... If Intranet bandwidth isn't an issue then Comcast should have no problems with that.... ;)
Click to expand...

While I think its a good point proving their sincerity of the policy, it really is meaningless. Any reason a company gives for any sort of price or policy to moot. Ultimately they all are for 2 reasons, cover expenses or generate profit.

If they are allowed via regulation and law then the reason doesn't matter at all, they could say cause the CEO was wearing poka dotted underwear on the day the policy decision was made.

The whole point in these arguments is to shed light that ISPs need to be regulated as a neutral entity with the current monopoly regulation system in the US.

You don't see your only electric provider selling you air conditioners, TVs, etc etc and not counting their use on your bill are you? Sure they are providing incentive to purchase more efficient devices... but that is the same as comcast giving bundle deals or cheaper xfinity if you already have internet service. But they are not, their streaming service is only available if you also have their internet service.
 
Steve said:
After reading his post / rant, it actually hit me...Reed Hastings uses Hulu? :D
Click to expand...

Market Research?

He would have to know how his competitors are doing in order to make intelligent decisions about the service he is charged with managing...
 
so the thing that kills me about this is those with cable cards can not use the xbox comcast app.

From what there techs tell me... im unable to use the app for part of the process is done through the cable box. Since cable card is one way and there cable boxes are "two way" there is no way for the cable card to respond to the xbox app request for information.

After speaking to lvl 2 support... It turns out that different account codes are placed on your account when you have a cable box capable of on demand content @ home (or on your account). It's those codes that are missing from cable card accounts which prevent xbox access.

Blah!
 
Whether or not this is "Net neutrality" all depends on where the "Net" starts according to your definition.

To most home users, the Internet is everything on the WAN side of their home router, regardless of what is going on behind the scenes.

If this is your definition, then yes, Comcast is walking all over Net Neutrality.

If you take a ISP view, and thus consider all traffic on networks that Comcast controls to be "local traffic" then this in keeping with Net Neutrality.

What happens - however - when you download something in bittorrent, and the other clients you see are all Comcast subscribers? The data is then all over the local network, and as such - if they are being consistent - it shouldn't count towards your cap. I'm willing to bet it does.

Either way, whether or not this is a violation of "Net neutrality" rules or not, it IS a violation of Anti-trust statutes, since Comcast is using a local monopoly in one field (network service) to get an unfair advantage in another (digital distribution of media content).

So it shouldn't matter if it's "net neutrality" or not. It's anti-competitive behavior and the FTC and DoJ Antitrust division should be looking into it.
 
MavericK96 said:
The problem is, them doing that is a conflict of interest for cable providers like Comcast, when they are allowing services like Netflix and Hulu to get "free" bandwidth while undercutting their cable TV subscriptions.

I agree with you totally, but I just don't think it will happen.
Click to expand...

Actually the overarching issue is that providers of content have to compete with providers of access and bandwidth. The problem is further exacerbated when those providers of access and bandwidth decide that they too will now be in the content providing business. The issue would simply dissolve if providers of internet access and content became dumb pipe providers where the data flowing through those pipes is neutral to whoever wants to use it. Whether its theirs or someone else's. The fact that Comcast doesn't ding your account with a usage hit, but does so for someone other content provider is gaming the system as it stands now.
 
Methadras said:
Actually the overarching issue is that providers of content have to compete with providers of access and bandwidth. The problem is further exacerbated when those providers of access and bandwidth decide that they too will now be in the content providing business. The issue would simply dissolve if providers of internet access and content became dumb pipe providers where the data flowing through those pipes is neutral to whoever wants to use it. Whether its theirs or someone else's. The fact that Comcast doesn't ding your account with a usage hit, but does so for someone other content provider is gaming the system as it stands now.
Click to expand...

I agree. I guess I was just speaking in regards to how Comcast likely feels about the situation, so unless there is some sort of investigation I doubt anything will change.
 
Its only a matter of time before we are all paying a minimum of $100 for just internet. Either that or they will say, go try dial up.
 
As the costs to provide bandwidth to ISP's fall, costs to provide bandwidth to consumers rises... how is this so difficult for you people to understand???
 
MavericK96 said:
I agree. I guess I was just speaking in regards to how Comcast likely feels about the situation, so unless there is some sort of investigation I doubt anything will change.
Click to expand...

They likely "feel" it will give them and edge in taking netflix customers.

Lets not forget that Comcast also owns a number of content providers like NBC and Universal Studios...

So the issue here is imho much worse then MS/IE.

They control the content, and how the content gets to you (largest cable and internet provider in the states). Combine that with utility monopoly regulations and it gets nasty.

Net Neutrality in my opinion is that ISPs should be heavily regulated as a neutral transportation method. The trick will be how to regulate traffic that should be managed to a certain degree and how. Could an ISP shut down a spam bot flooder? Should be able to , but how do you determine that easily and quickly without throwing loop holes in?
 
Good thing I hate all fucking streaming services :rolleyes:


Nevertheless, he rips on Comcast here because it's Comcast showing an obvious favor for their source of streaming instead of Netflix's... and a lot of people use Comcast. Whats that Netflix? You're getting butt-hurt because you got multiple sources of competition and you think you would be alone in the streaming world?


BAWWWWWWW there there now Netflix, come over here. Do I need to call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmbulance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top