dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
9

nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
Netgear R7000
Asus RT-N66
Hitron CODA-4582

nekkidtruth to jmn1207

Premium Member

to jmn1207

Re: Hold On Now

Google means exactly what it says. Herein lies the problem though. Netflix set a pretty dangerous precedent with regards to net neutrality when they signed a deal with Comcast. However, they didn't have a choice.

The ISP is responsible to provide you with enough capacity (especially at the prices you pay your ISP) to reach whatever content you desire. Rather than adjust to accommodate their own customers, they indulge in sketchy business practices such as what Google is stating and the end result (aside from pissing their own customers off) allows them to double dip. Getting paid twice for the same data.
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned)

Member

said by nekkidtruth:

Google means exactly what it says. Herein lies the problem though. Netflix set a pretty dangerous precedent with regards to net neutrality when they signed a deal with Comcast. However, they didn't have a choice.

That Comcast deal is not the same as the "fast lane" deals everyone is having a hissy fit about. And even a rock solid net neutrality law would not prevent Comcast type deals. All Netflix did was swap Cogent for Comcast when it comes to Comcast traffic.

nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON
Netgear R7000
Asus RT-N66
Hitron CODA-4582

1 recommendation

nekkidtruth

Premium Member

Which shouldn't have been necessary had Comcast been doing what they're suppose to be doing by catering to their customers. Instead, we now have double dipping and it smacks net neutrality in the face. You're talking about the Netflix deal with Comcast like it isn't basically the same thing as a "fast lane" deal. They are the same and Comcast is double dipping with both.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207 to 78036364

Premium Member

to 78036364
said by 78036364:

That Comcast deal is not the same as the "fast lane" deals everyone is having a hissy fit about. And even a rock solid net neutrality law would not prevent Comcast type deals. All Netflix did was swap Cogent for Comcast when it comes to Comcast traffic.

In 2010, wasn't it Level 3 Communications that Netflix was using that was having issues with Comcast? Seems like there really wasn't much of a choice for Netflix to do business with Comcast's captive customers no matter what option they attempted to use, so they had to directly pay Comcast.

I think I've got it now. If your business is in a position with dominant control of an area with no legitimate competition and no alternatives for your customer base, then you are free to use this leverage to demand payment for services that would otherwise already have been paid for in a situation where competition existed.

nekkidtruth
YISMM
Premium Member
join:2002-05-20
London, ON

nekkidtruth

Premium Member

Bingo. Toss in they now get paid from both ends and well...
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to jmn1207

Premium Member

to jmn1207
They could have continued to use LimeLight and Akamai. It was Netflix's decision to abandon them.

jmn1207
Premium Member
join:2000-07-19
Sterling, VA

jmn1207

Premium Member

said by silbaco:

They could have continued to use LimeLight and Akamai. It was Netflix's decision to abandon them.

How long before Comcast demanded additional payment from LimeLight or Akamai if Netflix used either of them? I guess if Comcast wanted more money, they could simply let these peering points saturate as well.

In the end, unless something changes, there really was only one option for Netflix to deal with Comcast, and that was to give them money for something they already paid for with their own ISP.

Let's hope that Comcast does not become too greedy. Is one new skyscraper going to be enough?