dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1393
share rss forum feed

GTOV8

join:2006-02-04
47894

Netflix pays Comcast

I have been trying for years to try and get a class action law suit against Netflix for using too much of our bandwidth for free while receiving income at our expense. Comcast was bright enough to come up with a deal.

I contend that Netflix is a scavenger. It's like someone going around selling bottled water off our community water system, making a profit and causing the water dept to spend money to service all the other water customers just so they can still have the water they need ... while they don't pay any water bill at all.

I contend that Netflix is abusing us, causing us to spend more to handle their network load while they reap all the profit. We build the pipes to service their customers with none of that revenue being used to help us build that extra infrastructure. I still say it is time for the rest of us providers to wake up to the abuse.

I'm not saying I am against Network Neutrality, which says that content providers should not pay for special interfaces to get to consumers ahead of other content providers. I am saying that a company that is using 60% of our pipes for their monetary gain needs to start covering the costs of all of us having to increase our bandwidth so they can make a profit at our expense.

robbin
Premium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Seems like either the network is neutral or it is not. I really don't see how Netflix abuses the ISP. The ISP sells a connection to the customer and they should be able to use it as they desire. I do support net neutrality and think this new partnership is bad for the consumer.

said by GTOV8:

It's like someone going around selling bottled water off our community water system, making a profit and causing the water dept to spend money to service all the other water customers just so they can still have the water they need ... while they don't pay any water bill at all.

Don't see how that would be possible unless they were stealing water. Most water systems have meters and you pay for what you use, residential or commercial.


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5

4 recommendations

reply to GTOV8
said by GTOV8:

I have been trying for years to try and get a class action law suit against Netflix for using too much of our bandwidth .... I contend that Netflix is a scavenger.

Wow...Just wow.

davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3
reply to GTOV8
Nonsense. You charge your residential and business internet access subscribers monthly fees for accessing the internet. If those fees are not covering your expenses for internet data transfer, you have several choices to make:

1. Increase the fees to cover expenses.

2. Limit the speeds you offer your customers so that they cannot ,under any circumstances, create a net loss for you. That may mean limiting everyone to 1 Mbps down and 1Mbps up.

3. Institute bundles of bytes charging. You separate the data transfer rate from the amount of data transferred. You can charge $30 per month for access to a 5Mbps symmetrical line service. To use that line you charge $1 per GB transferred up or down, overhead counts.

4. Some combination of the above.

5. Add in possible salary or benefit adjustments for employees.

On the other side, Netflix pays fees to their ISPs for services. Those ISPs negotiate prices for services rendered.

Now you and the other ISPs that service residential and business customers who use Netflix can have a nice meeting with the ISPs that service Netflix, just like they do in the movies. You all meet in one of those airport lounges that are placed after the TSA checkpoints. That way none of you can bring any serious fighting implements to the meeting. Then you discuss the exchanges of dollars for data transfers. Railroad cars and tractor trailers full of $2 bills are a good way to handle this.

LLigetfa

join:2006-05-15
Fort Frances, ON
kudos:1
reply to GTOV8
Should all the eCommerce and porn sites share their revenue as well?


motoracer

join:2003-09-15
united state

1 recommendation

reply to GTOV8
said by GTOV8:

I'm not saying I am against Network Neutrality

Yes, that's exactly what you're saying.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting
reply to GTOV8
said by GTOV8:

I have been trying for years to try and get a class action law suit against Netflix for using too much of our bandwidth for free while receiving income at our expense. Comcast was bright enough to come up with a deal.

If you read closely, this is actually an IXC deal. It won't affect endpoint ("last mile") delivery.

Is that you Ed Whitacre? That's like the phone company charging more for a call based on the topic of conversation.

Is it "your" bandwidth, or your customers bandwidth? What are they paying you for? If you want to sell metered service, by all means do it. If you have competitors, they'll eat you alive. If you don't, hooray for you. But look out when one does show up. Your customers will flee the scene in a heartbeat.

"Tolls roads" on the internet will not work. The whole thing will implode, or somebody will come along with open access and force everyone to remain "net neutral".
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

raytaylor

join:2009-07-28
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to GTOV8
I love usage based billing.

Your customers pay you so they can use your pipes to connect their house to the internet.
Netflix isnt your customer. If your customers want bigger pipes to handle netflix then charge them more.

Your target pricing should be such that if a customer wants to cancel their cable and switch to netflix, then that money they would have been paying to the cable co. will go to you, less netflix's share.

Set up a throttling system where you allocate a certain portion of your bandwidth to netflix. Give more of that portion to people who pay you for your premium plans, and advertise it as such.

$30 3mbits
$40 5mbits
$50 8mbits
$70 8mbits (Premium priority, great for netflix and smart TV's)

Use the words "priority" and "premium" to differentiate. Dont use the words throttling or imply the customer is being slowed down.

One way would be simply to advertise a plan as "suitable for netflix" or "netflix prioritised" or "premium streaming class priority"... see our knowledge base for more.

Then in your knowledgebase, simply have an article that says

How does the premium priority plan work?
We have two classes of service.

1) Our basic plans all have an equal priority when downloading data or accessing the internet. However if a website is physically hosted closer to us, we can deliver the data to you faster if you have a plan with a higher peak speed.
-alternately-
2) If you opt to select our premium priority plan, we will give you a higher priority for all internet access over our base plans. This results in a better experience when using online streaming services such as Netflix or Youtube.

Our range of plans are designed to suit all types of internet user, from those that only occasionally use the internet, right up to those that regularly use netflix and online streaming video.

wirelessdog

join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD
kudos:1

3 recommendations

reply to robbin
said by robbin:

Seems like either the network is neutral or it is not. I really don't see how Netflix abuses the ISP. The ISP sells a connection to the customer and they should be able to use it as they desire. I do support net neutrality and think this new partnership is bad for the consumer.

On this I agree with Robbin. Sell a connection, what the customer does with said connection is their business.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to GTOV8
Well at least we know that Ed Whitacre is alive and well on these forums....

OHSrob

join:2011-06-08

5 recommendations

reply to GTOV8
said by GTOV8:

I have been trying for years to try and get a class action law suit against Netflix for using too much of our bandwidth for free while receiving income at our expense. Comcast was bright enough to come up with a deal.

I contend that Netflix is a scavenger. It's like someone going around selling bottled water off our community water system, making a profit and causing the water dept to spend money to service all the other water customers just so they can still have the water they need ... while they don't pay any water bill at all.

I contend that Netflix is abusing us, causing us to spend more to handle their network load while they reap all the profit. We build the pipes to service their customers with none of that revenue being used to help us build that extra infrastructure. I still say it is time for the rest of us providers to wake up to the abuse.

I'm not saying I am against Network Neutrality, which says that content providers should not pay for special interfaces to get to consumers ahead of other content providers. I am saying that a company that is using 60% of our pipes for their monetary gain needs to start covering the costs of all of us having to increase our bandwidth so they can make a profit at our expense.

You can't be serious.

You have no business saying what should and should not come through your connection. Netflix doesn't owe you a dime you are just crazy.

If you cannot manage to handle the modern internet perhaps you need to look into doing something else other then providing internet.

I say bring on the netflix youtube and the rest of the modern internet. I don't care if someones traffic is just text, torrents or netflix. If they hit their usage limit they get slowed down and can continue enjoying the internet at a reduced speed. (1.5 megabits per second once the usage limit is past)

Quite frankly its none of my business and none of yours what they are doing. Just that they do not break the law. (And that it is logged for who had what address at what time for if someone does).
--
www.ontariohighspeed.ca

GTOV8

join:2006-02-04
47894
reply to GTOV8
»www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news···ork.html

"Netflix has agreed to pay one of the largest internet providers in America a fee, effectively compensating it for the extra burden that the online video service is placing on its network.'

It's not keeping people from getting the content they want. It's the idea of Netflix forcing ISPs to add more costs just to handle Netflix traffic so NETFLIX can reap the profit. It's not a small increase in traffic. It's 30% or 60% of all traffic. Porn, Youtube, etc. are nothing at all like 4 family members watching 4 separate streams. Yes we can charge more for higher bandwidth and I guess that is the only solution unless a competitor is crazy enough not to and just keeps paying for more bandwidth. We can wait until they close in bankruptcy and take their customers.

This model will now start to filter down the ISP channel. It's an appropriate financial model.


DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
Reviews:
·Charter

1 edit
I would take the Telegraph's snarky summation of what transpired with a rather small grain of salt...

nunya See Profile hit the nail on the head with what's happening here. Netflix's paid peering with Comcast allows "somewhat" like their CDN servers that they were trying to get ISPs to place in their networks. In comparison with the paid peering, the CDN attempt was really a back-hand at the industry because it was putting a legit burden on the provider's shoulders by expecting them to pay for cooling, rack space and electricity.

That said, and with no disrespect intended, but you're no Comcast. If you have users that have chosen your service to enjoy the Internet, that's a great accomplishment. If a number of those users are consuming their bandwidth and your upstream bandwidth with Netflix traffic, I can appreciate how that puts the load on your shoulders to support that traffic (and related expenses to provide quality service to your customers).

However, Comcast pulls how many hundreds of gigabits of traffic from Netflix's network per second? Say that "this model will now start to filter down to the ISP channel," what are you willing to expend on your network to allow Netflix to directly peer with you? Do you have a colo or even a facility that they can directly connect to you? How much will it cost to backhaul that colo facility to your main POP?

There's so much more to be considered with this other than a feeling of slight by Netflix for making money from your subscribers. A lot of sound suggestions were provided in this thread that can maybe help to defer the costs incurred by your subs wanting to use your service for some entertainment.

Edit to reference the following link:
»blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/···ong.html

voxframe

join:2010-08-02
reply to GTOV8
Wow... Yeah... Wow.

How to completely discredit yourself as an ISP, or a person who understands anything about the internet/networking.

Sorry dude, but you're way out to lunch. I pray you haven't spent any serious time/money on this little witch hunt.

As was stated above...

said by motoracer:

said by GTOV8:

I'm not saying I am against Network Neutrality

Yes, that's exactly what you're saying.

YES, YES THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!

u475700
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Reviews:
·Callcentric
·Comcast
reply to GTOV8
Reuters posted this yesterday online:

Netflix to pay Comcast for faster speeds

»www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/···20140223

lutful
... of ideas
Premium
join:2005-06-16
Ottawa, ON
kudos:1
reply to GTOV8
said by GTOV8:

Netflix for using too much of our bandwidth for free while receiving income at our expense.

Our home ADSL is really crappy (check my reviews) but we can watch Netflix HD movies on our TV and talk on Skype at same time.

Bandwidth challenged ISPs could limit throughput per customer which still allows reasonable quality for single Netflix stream and single VoIP call in parallel. I will guess 2mbps down and 256kbps up would be OK which is not a huge challenge with good network design.

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Integra Telecom

2 recommendations

reply to GTOV8
said by GTOV8:

»www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news···ork.html

"Netflix has agreed to pay one of the largest internet providers in America a fee, effectively compensating it for the extra burden that the online video service is placing on its network.'

It's not keeping people from getting the content they want. It's the idea of Netflix forcing ISPs to add more costs just to handle Netflix traffic so NETFLIX can reap the profit. It's not a small increase in traffic. It's 30% or 60% of all traffic. Porn, Youtube, etc. are nothing at all like 4 family members watching 4 separate streams. Yes we can charge more for higher bandwidth and I guess that is the only solution unless a competitor is crazy enough not to and just keeps paying for more bandwidth. We can wait until they close in bankruptcy and take their customers.

This model will now start to filter down the ISP channel. It's an appropriate financial model.

I'd gladly take 4 family members in a single household streaming Netflix than someone saturating their connection for days with newsgroups (and yes, I have had customers on 100mbps connections saturate them non-stop for multiple days). But at the end of the day, I couldn't care less about how my subscribers use their internet connections. I know what my network can handle and always assume the chance that they will saturate their connection for a period of time. If your network cannot handle that, you did a very poor job at provisioning service.

Regardless, you have to be very narrow-minded to think Netflix is costing you more money. You provide your subscribers with a connection out to the internet. That's it. How they use it, assuming legal, is up to them, not you.

Wake up, Netflix already pays their fair share. They operate at least one ASN and surely spend the money to transport data to every IXP they peer at currently. One might say they are operating as a carrier, given their footprint and investment.

How many IXPs do you peer at currently?


BGB
Wants moar interwebz
Premium
join:2009-07-09
Waterloo, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

1 recommendation

reply to GTOV8
So here is my side of the story...

I PAY my ISP for 300GB of DATA a month.
If I go over my 300GB of DATA, I PAY EXTRA for each GB of DATA I go over.

The ISP should be taking some of this money I PAY THEM to buy enough of a peering connection that makes its way to NetFlix.

So, if all that money that I PAY my ISP (In my case TekSavvy in Canada) does not cover the cost of the connection then my ISP should either A) Charge more for the 300GB and Overage charges so it covers the actual cost of the connection, or B) Lower the 300GB CAP to one that my currently monthly cost is enough to pay for.

In this case, it's 100% Comcast being too cheap to use the money that their subscribers pay them to actually deliver the services that their customers are paying them for, and instead are trying to find a new revenue stream to make their shareholders happy.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

I take you don't understand how peering works. If two networks exchange equal amounts of traffic then they enter into a settlement free peering arrangement. If one sends more traffic to the other then the one sending more traffic pays the one receiving the traffic. This is how it's always worked. Netflix tried to beat the system by trying to shame providers into letting them peer for free.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

TheHox

join:2012-05-31


TomS_
Git-r-done
Premium,MVM
join:2002-07-19
London, UK
kudos:5
reply to battleop
It doesnt always involve payment. There are still a lot of "handshake peering" agreements where by there is zero cost involved except for the cross connects.

Peering may also be settlement based even if traffic levels are similar.

The ideal situation is no matter how much each party is exchanging with each other, the cost is free beyond the infrastructure to make the cross connection itself.

Then you have your paid transit.

Then you have everything in between in every conceivable combination.

Its not quite so black and white, there are many shades of every colour in between.


DaDawgs
Premium
join:2010-08-02
Deltaville, VA
reply to davidhoffman
You could also simply block Netflix and charge for access to that specific service.

wirelessdog

join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD
kudos:1
reply to BGB
said by BGB:

I PAY my ISP for 300GB of DATA a month.
If I go over my 300GB of DATA, I PAY EXTRA for each GB of DATA I go over.

Theory doesn't work for most of us that offer customers unlimited connections.

wirelessdog

join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD
kudos:1
reply to DaDawgs
said by DaDawgs:

You could also simply block Netflix and charge for access to that specific service.

Interesting theory. How are you accomplishing this?

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Integra Telecom
said by wirelessdog:

Interesting theory. How are you accomplishing this?

It's completely doable, just requires more engineering and makes your network more complex, more things to break.

Regardless of it being doable, it's very questionable (some might even say unethical) behavior for an ISP to accomplish.


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5
reply to battleop
said by battleop:

Netflix tried to beat the system by trying to shame providers into letting them peer for free.

Not exactly. Netflix uses Cogent for its bandwidth, a notoriously low-end carrier, and it's Cogent that tries to shame others into peering and otherwise unequally sharing the traffic.

It never fails to amaze me how Cogent manages to avoid getting tagged with being the bad guy, including in this incident.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
"t never fails to amaze me how Cogent manages to avoid getting tagged with being the bad guy, including in this incident."

It's because Netflix is the one that's being vocal about it. They are the ones with the bullshit ISP ranking system of theirs, not Cogent. Besides anyone who knows anything about this business already knows everything about Cogent.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.

wirelessdog

join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD
kudos:1
reply to BlueC
said by BlueC:

it's very questionable (some might even say unethical) behavior for an ISP to accomplish.

That depends. Our base level of service specifically states that it does not support Netflix. What would be questionable or unethical about blocking Netflix for those who have that service?

BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Integra Telecom
said by wirelessdog:

That depends. Our base level of service specifically states that it does not support Netflix. What would be questionable or unethical about blocking Netflix for those who have that service?

If you're clearly disclosing that Netflix is not permitted on a certain tier of service (meaning you're offering other service tiers that permit Netflix), then that seems acceptable. However, I still think (my opinion) it's not right to isolate specific networks from being accessed.

If it's a bandwidth consumption issue, having a lower speed tier (e.g. 1mbps) would seem proper in that scenario, as it inherently restricts any high bitrate streaming, but doesn't isolate any particular network.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
·surpasshosting
reply to wirelessdog
From the customers POV, they are paying $XX for XX Mbps, and they can do whatever they please.
You're saying they can do whatever they please, except XXXX.
It would be like the phone company saying you have unlimited calls, except to your mother. You talk to her too much and it's busying up the switch.
Blocking a specific service while allowing others is very nanny-like. Why stop at Netflix? Let's block Hulu, or Youtube, or Facebook... When you block one, another will take over. Keep blocking and animosity grows.
You don't have to look any further than the phone company in the 90's - rather than upgrade our network to keep up with changing times, let's do everything we can to stifle our customers. Meanwhile - the cable companies were pushing out FTTN everywhere and developing DOCSIS.
That's why the cable companies are now eating the telco's lunch.
You might be able to push people around for a few years, but when somebody better (or even just different) comes along you'll get quick backlash.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.