[News] Comcast extorts Netflix, VZ and AT&T plan to follow suit.

PatrThom

PatrThom

So maybe you've heard that Netflix has agreed to pay Comcast to ensure its content is delivered to customers "with less slowdowns" than previously.
Comcast Corporation and Netflix, Inc. today announced a mutually beneficial interconnection agreement that will provide Comcast’s US broadband customers with a high-quality Netflix video experience for years to come. Working collaboratively over many months, the companies have established a more direct connection between Netflix and Comcast, similar to other networks, that’s already delivering an even better user experience to consumers, while also allowing for future growth in Netflix traffic. Netflix receives no preferential network treatment under the multi-year agreement, terms of which are not being disclosed*.
Click to expand...
Unsurprisingly, Verizon's CEO is now talking about how they are negotiating the terms of Netflix's surrender similar upcoming peering agreement.
I would expect that we would [make a deal with Netflix]. I'm not here to pre-announce and I'm not here to change my hand at the negotiating table, but I think there's a good opportunity here. Both [Netflix CEO] Reed [Hastings] and I have talked about it and we think it's in both of our interests.
Click to expand...
Ooo, and it looks like AT&T is also now in negotiations for the same sort of agreement.
We’re in discussions with Netflix to establish a more direct connection between our networks, similar to agreements we have with others, so that AT&T broadband customers who use Netflix can enjoy an even better video experience.
Click to expand...
I guess we will get to tell our progeny that we were around when it all started, at least.

--Patrick
*"We promise everything we just said is true, and you can even verify it against this self-signed certificate."
 
Last edited:
Frank

Frank

Boy, net neutrality being smashed to pieces last month sure didn't take long to rear it's ugly ramifications encrusted head.
 
Shakey

Shakey

Yes. Lets let them also get rid of land lines in favor of wireless so they have an even better reason to limit data usage.
 
strawman

strawman

The FCC is rewriting the rules so they should be fine in court while providing net neutrality. We'll see what happens.

I would be surprised if netflix didn't get an exclusive agreement, meaning that being first to the post, they will prevent Apple, Amazon and other streaming providers from getting the "premium" bandwidth netflix will get regardless of the deal offered.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Terrik said:
'merica :(
Click to expand...
stienman said:
I would be surprised if netflix didn't get an exclusive agreement, meaning that being first to the post, they will prevent Apple, Amazon and other streaming providers from getting the "premium" bandwidth netflix will get regardless of the deal offered.
Click to expand...
There's a loooong history of entities who scrabble and fight and claw and scratch their way to get into "the club" only to turn right around and scrabble and fight and claw and scratch to try and shut the door behind them to make sure nobody else can come in after them.

--Patrick
 
papachronos

papachronos

This is not an issue of net neutrality.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...etflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html

TL;DR: Netflix has decided to bypass third-party content distribution networks like Akamai and Level 3 in favor of putting their servers directly in Comcast's network. They have basically cut out the middleman who used to run the network through which all of their streaming passed between the Netflix servers and the Comcast servers. This has nothing to do with content.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Soooo...they're totally surrounded by Comcast, but they're not owned by Comcast? Or are they only putting some servers inside of CC's network?

--Patrick
 
papachronos

papachronos

PatrThom said:
Soooo...they're totally surrounded by Comcast, but they're not owned by Comcast? Or are they only putting some servers inside of CC's network?

--Patrick
Click to expand...
Previously, Netflix delivered their data to Akamai (and/or other third-party CDNs), who then delivered it to Comcast. These CDNs take data from content providers, consolidate it into one big pipe, and then distribute it to the ISPs, who deliver it to the customers' homes. In this arrangement, Netflix paid Akamai a distribution charge, who would take a cut, and pay Comcast for the access to their customers. Instead, Netflix has simply decided to build their own CDN and pipe their stuff directly into Comcast, paying them instead of the CDN. End result - data gets from Netflix to Comcast without the middleman, and Netflix pays less than they previously were because of reduced overhead. These new servers would only serve content to Comcast customers. They already have similar deals with many other smaller ISPs.

Of course, it could come to pass that Comcast decides to throttle Netflix for anti-competitive reasons, but that would find them in violation of their contract and would expose them to massive litigation, and nobody wants that.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
papachronos said:
This is not an issue of net neutrality.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...etflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html

TL;DR: Netflix has decided to bypass third-party content distribution networks like Akamai and Level 3 in favor of putting their servers directly in Comcast's network. They have basically cut out the middleman who used to run the network through which all of their streaming passed between the Netflix servers and the Comcast servers. This has nothing to do with content.
Click to expand...
That's assuming that they had the choice to not make this move. If they had the choice between "put your servers directly on our network, or we'll throttle your bandwidth", that's still an issue of net neutrality. We don't know that there wasn't pressure put on Netflix forcing them into this deal. The history of cable companies having already tried to charage Netflix extra for prefferential treatment suggests to me that there was at least some amount of arm twisting involved in this.
 
Covar

Covar

Comcast currently has a deal in place with the FCC to follow the Open Web standards until 2018 (this was part of getting approval for their acquisition of NBC Universal), even though the standards were recently struck down in court. So while Comcast could very well have not bothered updating the infrastructure on their end where they connect with Cogent, which would detriment Netflix, they were most likely not doing any kind of packet shaping.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Covar said:
Comcast currently has a deal in place with the FCC to follow the Open Web standards until 2018 (this was part of getting approval for their acquisition of NBC Universal), even though the standards were recently struck down in court. So while Comcast could very well have not bothered updating the infrastructure on their end where they connect with Cogent, which would detriment Netflix, they were most likely not doing any kind of packet shaping.
Click to expand...
Wait, Comcast has NBC?

Then why the hell does NBC's website have shitty buffering so much when I'm a Comcast customer?
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Its worth remembering that this cuts both ways. Netflix can decide to decline a "priority" deal with a company like Verizon, and do so publicly (stating that the terms aren't affordable), making Verizon look like the bad guy. This could then encourage people to switch ISPs. It only really works in cities with multiple options, which isn't a lot of them, but its something.
 
Shakey

Shakey

Level 3, a company similar to Cogent, is weighing in on it now too.


Some ISPs, however, have refused to augment their networks UNLESS the content providers they connect to agree to pay them to do so. Viewed in the light most favorable to these ISPs, they want content suppliers to pay not only for their own increased costs of supplying more robust Internet content, but also for any increased network costs of the ISPs too. This is not only unreasonable on its face, but it is entirely inconsistent with published reports indicating that returns on invested capital for ISPs are excellent, and are expected to improve even further, driving considerable additional growth in economic profits. More cynically, these ISPs simply view these arbitrary tolls as new sources of revenue for their last mile bottleneck monopolies or as a way to unfairly discriminate against content that competes with the content the ISPs themselves supply.
Click to expand...
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

The way it's worded there, it almost sounds like the ISPs are setting up their own TSA-style checkpoints.

--Patrick
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Even if a number of web hosts were to do this, I have to wonder if it'd make any difference unless someone came in with a counter-offer of money to the shitheads we let run our country.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Zero Esc said:
Even if a number of web hosts were to do this, I have to wonder if it'd make any difference unless someone came in with a counter-offer of money to the shitheads we let run our country.
Click to expand...
I'm hopeful that the plan is that the FCC will get the message (especially with all the other tech companies handing in their opinions[PDF]) that if they okay these sorts of payments, the tech companies may make extra-special-sure that if any web requests are going to get delayed, that it will probably start with the ones going to the FCC's internal IP block.

--Patrick
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Apparently the phone calls against this were so heavy in volume that the FCC shut off their damn phones.

How dare people try to have a voice in how their government functions. :rolleyes:
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Zero Esc said:
Apparently the phone calls against this were so heavy in volume that the FCC shut off their damn phones.
Click to expand...
Yes. I believe they announced that they would prefer that any of this be sent to them via email.
So many Americans have called the FCC that an automated message now asks them to email “open Internet” comments to a new inbox instead.
Click to expand...
source

--Patrick
 
Krisken

Krisken

PatrThom said:
Yes. I believe they announced that they would prefer that any of this be sent to them via email.

source

--Patrick
Click to expand...
Fuck that, they made the form so difficult to fill out it was super irritating. Lets keep shutting down their phone service, maybe they'll get the hint this isn't going away.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Krisken said:
I know this has been going around for a couple days, so not sure if everyone has already seen it.

Comcast CEO says he believes monthly data caps will be in place within 5 years, charging a flat rate for X amount and when the cap is reached charging more for each gigabyte after the cap.
Click to expand...
It'll never happen, not with how quickly file sizes are increasing and how much of our infrastructure depends on net access at this point, especially if wireless starts getting faster. Hell, I don't even see Comcast existing in 10 years unless they perform some serious infrastructure upgrades because using your wireless plan will just make more sense. Cable only makes sense right now because people want to stream stuff to their TV and PC and don't have a better option with Wireless.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

AshburnerX said:
It'll never happen, not with how quickly file sizes are increasing and how much of our infrastructure depends on net access at this point
Click to expand...
That's almost like saying, "Gas will never go above $1/gal." It all depends on how much demand there is, and how much the people who supply that demand want to take advantage of it.

--Patrick
 
strawman

strawman

4k and 3D 1080p streaming will suck up more bandwidth.

They will introduce tiered levels just so they can charge 2-3 times more for the unlimited plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top