Posted on 10/01/2014 10:18:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
In a recent stunt that flamed out, Netflix led an online effort to incite their consumers into taking action on net neutrality that would ultimately benefit the company’s own bottom-line. The company tried to fake a slowdown of the Internet on its site to mimic what they claim could happen without net neutrality. The failed stunt showed that Netflix’s assertions and sneakiness are absurd.
Netflix is now the go-to destination for movie and TV show rentals, accounting for a staggering one-third of all downstream Internet traffic during peak hours. As the company’s popularity and consumer base has grown, so too has its role at the center of many ongoing public policy debates in Washington, D.C.
As the House of Representatives works to overhaul our outdated communications laws against the backdrop of a contentious debate surrounding net neutrality, they have examined the complex issue of interconnection – defined by the government as “the linking of two networks for the mutual exchange of traffic.”
At its core, it is helpful to think of interconnection as the linking of a content provider’s servers like Netflix’s to outside networks (for example an Internet service provider’s (ISPs) network) to help transmit that content to consumers. Basically, interconnection enables the delivery of a Netflix movie from point A to point B. Although many consumers are rightly oblivious to the concept of interconnection, it has been a focal point of recent acrimony as Netflix has tried to unfairly shift the burden of delivering its bandwidth-intensive content on to ISPs. More specifically, Netflix has erroneously blamed the ISPs for some of their consumers’ delays or quality issues when trying to watch its programming.
Although the company is free to bicker with whomever they want, their accusations distract from the more pressing issue of having a full, frank, open discussion about interconnection as policymakers seek to do. Moreover, Netflix’s finger pointing and online theatrics are not productive considering there are ways to better meet their consumers’ needs that the company is fully aware of but had chosen to ignore for inexplicable reasons.
During the summer, Netflix publically cast unfounded blame on an ISP for issues consumers experienced when trying to stream Netflix content. An examination of the accusations revealed that the consumers’ issues were not caused by congestion or any other issues on the ISP’s network. Rather, Netflix’s consumers’ experienced problems because the company had chosen a substandard and convoluted path through various third parties – perhaps to save money – to interconnect with that ISP’s network. In essence, Netflix chose a congested path to deliver its content and then blamed others for the poor quality of its service.
Rather than shirking its responsibility and impugning others for its poor decisions, Netflix can and should choose more appropriate channels to connect to ISP networks that ultimately deliver its content to tens of millions of Netflix subscribers.
Fortunately, Netflix did finally enter into a direct interconnection agreement with Internet provider AT&T that cuts out the intermediaries that may cause delays. The agreement should improve the viewing experience of their shared consumers. What’s more, the company has reached similar agreements with other major Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon so even more consumers stand to benefit.
And rightfully so – consumers are the ultimate arbiter.
In the end, companies like Netflix succeed by providing better, more innovative services consumers demanded when others were slow to respond. Not by perpetuating online melodramatics.
My gym (L.A. Fitness) just started providing WiFi for its customers. I noticed that Netflicks has been restricted. If you fire up a Netflicks movie it will play for about a minute then shut down (ie. the signal stops). I can understand why they would set it up that way though.
Completely wrong.
The cable ISP industry owned by the NBC and the likes is trying to have its cake and eat it - so to speak.
First they charge us for the internet access. They promise to provide certain bandwidth, let’s say 20Mbps in exchange for let’s say $50 per month. The presumption is that once the bandwidth is paid for, you can use it to transfer data to your computer from the internet.
But it’s not enough for the ISPs
They want to turn around and charge other company to access the SAME BANDWIDTH THAT YOU ALREADY PAID FOR.
And they frame it as some sort of fairness issue when the exact opposite is true.
To be sure, Netflix and the like already pay for bandwidth - they have their own ISP that allows them to move certain amount of data. They should not have to pay for the both sides of transmission.
If net neutrality is defeated, the first thing the crazy left NBC/Comcast would do is throttle down conservative sites like FR or PJ Media and the like and demand money to restore bandwidth.
They probably just put a cap on the amount of bits you can stream to your device per session.
It isnt magic.
If Netflix is using up 1/3 of the pipe, what are the ISPs supposed to do? They cant make-believe a bigger pipe. When this one company’s service uses so much of what is there, then something should be worked out with that company so that EVERYONE else doesn’t slow to a crawl like this is AOL c.1994. Whatever Netflix paid before doesn’t cover what they are using.
It’s like if you have a highway, and a store that everyone wants to go to builds one entrance/exit right directly into that highway. Now you have traffic back-up for miles because that is the only way everyone can get to the store.
You paid for that road as well as the store through taxes, however the road cant deal with all of the cars. The municipality now makes a deal with the store to help pay to build a road to help with the overflow so that all of the traffic can get by without a snarl. That’s all this is.
“If net neutrality is defeated, the first thing the crazy left NBC/Comcast would do is throttle down conservative sites like FR or PJ Media and the like and demand money to restore bandwidth.”
So what was stopping them the past 10 years? These guys aren’t in the business of making trouble for their bottom line. If ISPs wanted to shut down conservative sites, they would have done it.
No, because I can stream movies from my icloud that I've purchased from Itunes. I've only seen the throttle occur when trying to stream from Netflicks.
Interesting.
I’m told that streaming music and video is the future (no more purchased films or albums).
Seems a data waste to keep pushing those same bits around. NOW, if you could cache your favorites locally for repeat play, think of the savings. But no, that means “piracy” to some. Even though VCRs could save content (and now the DVD-R and DVR machines are in separate boxes although briefly you could buy all in one units in America).
Totally agree. An ISP gets paid by Netflix or any other company for some level of bandwidth use. They then have agreements with other provider to take their content and deliver it based on bandwidth and interconnect agreements. The cable company delivering the network to your home has similar agreements. The end user has an agreement based on contract for bandwidth usage.
Why should Netflix pay more than the agreement calls for in bandwidth, what then stops the network provider from charging you more not based on the bandwidth you use? Say you visit Netflix you pay more, you visit ESPN you pay more or what if they just don’t like conservatives and charge you more for visiting FreeRepublic, Brietbart or Fox?
Net neutrality is critically important to the proper functioning of the internet. Otherwise we will have the same fiascos as we have now in the banking industry.
I have absolutely no use for Netflix. I have signed up several time, but can not find any movies I care about, and if I find one then they don’t have it. No thanks, I don’t need it
Say does this mean Obama has a side gig as Netflix COO?
That’s the ISP Kool-Aid.
The reality is not “Netflix is using up to 1/3 of the pipe”
It’s: the subscribers are using the bandwidth that they paid for.
The real problem is that ISPs oversold their capacity. They advertized (and still do) $50 / 20Mbps in anticipation that nobody would saturate their limit. When people started streaming HD content, they came closer to filling the pipe.
ISPs should deliver on what they promised rather than mucking around with customer traffic and holding popular services hostage.
Ok. So where are they going to get more?
You are using what you pay for, but when LOTS of people are using lots of bandwidth to stream HD videos, that is not something that ISPs anticipated.
So now you still end up in reality where there isnt enough bandwidth for people to stream video from Netflix all day in
HD.
Netflix is making money using huge amounts of bandwidth that makes their service available, far in excess of what they are paying for, and the result is causing their service to not run like both sides would want.
So why shouldn’t Netflix work with ISPs to make sure that extra room is made for their high bandwidth service? They are in a sense running a pseudo cable TV station through these ISPs, and cant expect those places to spend billions so they dont have to worry about a hiccup.
What do you mean “Netflix is making money using huge amounts of bandwidth that makes their service available, far in excess of what they are paying for” ?
If I am paying for 20Mbps, that’s all I get. I am technically blocked from using more then that.
Same as Netflix. They bought some bandwidth from THEIR ISP, probably some backbone provider. Their ISP provides it to them.
The problem is that Comcast/NBC and the like refuse to invest into their network to fulfill their promise to the subscribers. Technologically it’s trivial. Buy some extra routers to connect to their peering partners to increase the bandwidth. But then they couldn’t charge us twice for the same service. 1st time for the connection. 2nd time when they charge the providers who will pass the cost to us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.