dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
51
share rss forum feed


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Consumer protection lawsuits

Netflix should have provided legal assistance to affected customers in suing Comcast under various state consumer protection lawsuits. Consumers pay for their bandwidth, if Comcast fails do deliver the goods that consumers pay for, then it's fraud.

If I were in the shoes of a Netflix executive, I wouldn't pay Comcast a dime, I'd be in court. If Comcast has the goods to deliver and customers are paying for those goods and they're not receiving them, then that's outright fraud. And the truth can be found using a legal tool called discovery.

Remember the lawsuits over P2P, Netflix has every right to sue.
--
Stop the Comcast-Time Warner merger, I'd rather Time Warner buy out Comcast.


elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

Maybe after the fact. But in the meantime crap happens and they need to survive. Remember how many companies Microsoft shafted? What good is suing after you are dead. Lawsuits are expensive and LONG...


Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL
reply to IowaCowboy

netflix should sue to stop the twc comcast merger



PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

5 recommendations

reply to IowaCowboy

Netflix should be suing the the people they contracted with for CDN service providers for not living up to the contract if that is the case. They have nothing to sue Comcast for. Netflix is not a comcast customer.
--
Add a signature here


AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL
reply to IowaCowboy

said by IowaCowboy:

If I were in the shoes of a Netflix executive, I wouldn't pay Comcast a dime, I'd be in court. If Comcast has the goods to deliver and customers are paying for those goods and they're not receiving them, then that's outright fraud. And the truth can be found using a legal tool called discovery.

The fact that NetFlix elected not to file any lawsuits and instead chose to wage an Internet PR campaign should tell you volumes. While the transit fees are not significant financially overall, they are likely higher than any legal fees. Considering the amount of revenue from the NetFlix subscriber fees, it would be foolish to believe NetFlix did not consider all avenues to protect their income.

AVonGauss
Premium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

7 recommendations

reply to PhoenixDown

said by PhoenixDown:

Netflix is not a comcast customer.

Was not a Comcast customer. Even though its a fairly unpopular view on boards such as this, the NetFlix transit deals are actually very good for consumers and NetFlix. They establish a direct relationship between the content provider (NetFlix) and the ISPs who service their customers. Its not a new paradigm nor unique to the US market, any content provider that grows beyond a certain size eventually has to cross this bridge.


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
reply to elefante72

What Comcast is basically doing is like Bell system forcing all GTE customers to accept all calls from Bell System Customers collect while the Bell System customers still have to pay for the calls.

Netflix is accepting one expensive collect call they don't have to. I think Netflix should pay the transit fees in the short run to fix the problem but I think they should sue Comcast. Figuring out choke points isn't rocket science and anyone with a computer engineering degree can figure it out.

If Netflix works OK on municipal broadband or independent ISPs that aren't TV providers than all fingers point to Comcast/pay TV ISPs and I can figure that out and I'm not a computer engineer.

Maybe Netflix and Comcast need to come to an interconnection deal that reduces saturation all the way from Netflix to the modem in a customer's home. Maybe they could have a special Netflix modem that has a dedicated DOCSIS channel for Netflix traffic. The saturation could be anywhere from the point of entry to the Comcast network to the CMTS to the Node.
--
Stop the Comcast-Time Warner merger, I'd rather Time Warner buy out Comcast.



PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

1 - Netflix (was not) a Comcast customer and therefore has no standing to sue in court in the traditional sense.

2 - You forget there is a middle man here and other providers sending traffic to the end ISP's via that middle man. You cannot accurately compare 1 with another because they may both have different numbers of peering points and they may both have different levels of traffic coming from middle man.

There is nothing inherently NEW about this issue. Its gone on since time immortal. Its why google in effect built an national if not global private backbone that connects with nearly every ISP.
--
Add a signature here



IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Netflix could use a customer of Comcast as a plaintiff and pay for the lawyer. Arbitration clauses ban class action suits but you can still sue on an individual basis. Just like the guy who sued AT&T for throttling his iPhone.
--
Stop the Comcast-Time Warner merger, I'd rather Time Warner buy out Comcast.



PlusOne

@73.160.110.x

1 recommendation

reply to AVonGauss

said by AVonGauss:

said by PhoenixDown:

Netflix is not a comcast customer.

Was not a Comcast customer. Even though its a fairly unpopular view on boards such as this, the NetFlix transit deals are actually very good for consumers and NetFlix. They establish a direct relationship between the content provider (NetFlix) and the ISPs who service their customers. Its not a new paradigm nor unique to the US market, any content provider that grows beyond a certain size eventually has to cross this bridge.

+1


PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to IowaCowboy

said by IowaCowboy:

Netflix could use a customer of Comcast as a plaintiff and pay for the lawyer. Arbitration clauses ban class action suits but you can still sue on an individual basis. Just like the guy who sued AT&T for throttling his iPhone.

Again, even if Netflix did this -- who is to say they have a snowballs chance of winning? The problem is unidirectional, pointing toward the middle men, not the other way around.
--
Add a signature here


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1

Then maybe they should take Level 3 and Cogent to court. They pay them for bandwidth, they didn't deliver and and now Netflix has a case.
--
Stop the Comcast-Time Warner merger, I'd rather Time Warner buy out Comcast.



BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1

1 recommendation

said by IowaCowboy:

Then maybe they should take Level 3 and Cogent to court. They pay them for bandwidth, they didn't deliver and and now Netflix has a case.

didn't or couldn't.

50 lane highway into a 4 lane highway.

and as it stands, i would be much more likely to believe Cogent and L3 over Comcast or Verizon, who lately have to be run by the biggest group of assholes ever.

OptiFi

join:2014-08-24
Charlotte, NC
reply to IowaCowboy

Comcast provided the data. If you read the contract you signed called your Terms of Service and AUP, Comcast states that the traffic speed is ONLY on their network. You lease space on their PRIVATE network and the Internet is only an add-on. Has always done this. Also they will tell you along with every other ISP, that even speed tests only mean things when done on THEIR network. Not the open Internet as they can only control THEIR network. Not Cogent, Not L3 not AT&T, etc. ONLY Comcast's network.


OptiFi

join:2014-08-24
Charlotte, NC
reply to BonezX

And you forget, Cogent has issues with bad peering from the start. Unequal traffic passes?? That would be brought up in court. Something Cogent wouldn't ant.


OptiFi

join:2014-08-24
Charlotte, NC
reply to AVonGauss

Comcast's Peering/Transit is different and actually a different company.



alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma
reply to AVonGauss

said by AVonGauss:

said by PhoenixDown:

Netflix is not a comcast customer.

Was not a Comcast customer. Even though its a fairly unpopular view on boards such as this, the NetFlix transit deals are actually very good for consumers and NetFlix. They establish a direct relationship between the content provider (NetFlix) and the ISPs who service their customers. Its not a new paradigm nor unique to the US market, any content provider that grows beyond a certain size eventually has to cross this bridge.

You are absolutely right, you are one of the few that gets it. Netflix has started a trend that is only going to get bigger. People feel that content on the Internet should be free for the most part, and Content Providers think the same way. This only runs into problems when these Providers get too big and clog up the low cost or free Peering Points. Then a Direct Link or Transit has to be established for their Customers, that's where these Direct Connect agreements come into play. No Lawsuits needed just access for their Customers.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1

that would be true if Consumers weren't already footing the bill for upgrades of peeing points with transit providers.

The customer is requesting the data from Netflix, the ISP's part of this is to fulfill the customers request, which is the data from Netflix, these peering agreements are just a way for the ISP to gain income from the customer who they are paid by to provide a service, and the content providers by either negligence or just pure greed by letting peeing points saturate and charging a "fee" to content providers for access to their customers.

Customers pay for an internet connection, first and foremost, until the TOS states otherwise the ISP's role is to provide the service that the customer requests, be it streaming video or just browsing webpages.

Not to mention that a couple ISP's are starting their own on streaming video services, and others have plans to do so in the future.



alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by BonezX:

The customer is requesting the data from Netflix, the ISP's part of this is to fulfill the customers request, which is the data from Netflix, these peering agreements are just a way for the ISP to gain income from the customer who they are paid by to provide a service, and the content providers by either negligence or just pure greed by letting peeing points saturate and charging a "fee" to content providers for access to their customers.

Customers pay for an internet connection, first and foremost, until the TOS states otherwise the ISP's role is to provide the service that the customer requests, be it streaming video or just browsing webpages.

Okay BonezX you are thinking like the Average Person, that ISP's have control over congested Incoming Traffic from all Peering or Transit Providers. This Traffic, in this case between Netflix and the Peering or Transit Providers, has to be negotiated for more Bandwidth into the ISP. Once negotiated then the Peering or Transit Provider can increase the Bandwidth with paid Orders from the ISP. With Direct Connect the Peering and Transit Providers are left out and the negotiations are with Netflix and the ISP for the needed Bandwidth.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1

1 edit

so it's perfectly OK that you as a consumer has to have a Comcast, TWC, Verizon, and AT&T connection to access the entire internet, because that is basically what your saying is perfectly OK.

If a company for instance was hosting on Comcasts network and they got big, should they be required to also hold connections with other networks to provide their product ?, that's like saying i have to pay every trucking company in the country to move my product to different states, financially it's stupid from a sellers perspective, and logistically it's stupid because you would need to maintain upkeep on redundancy that doesn't need to exist.

And just so you know, the average person thinks bandwidth is a finite resource that if you use it once it's gone forever, or that Data is a finite resource, do you know why they think that, because companies have taken years of effort to convince people that using data is like burning gas. The only way data is a finite resource is capacity, and YOU are paying your ISP to provide capacity, and they are blatantly failing at it prime time should not exist, throttling should not exist, data caps should not exist, and anyone that knows anything about how networks work can tell you that, and the only reason they do exist is when someone promises beyond the networks capacity(except for data caps, they are complete bullshit regardless).

And lets through a hypothetical in there, Redbox Instant is a streaming service hosted by Verizon, what kind of legal mess would there be if Comcast required Verizon to create a special connection to their network to provide the service, you can bet your ass that Verizon would have them in court claiming net neutrality faster then a politician can change stances.



alchav

join:2002-05-17
Saint George, UT
Reviews:
·ooma

said by BonezX:

so it's perfectly OK that you as a consumer has to have a Comcast, TWC, Verizon, and AT&T connection to access the entire internet, because that is basically what your saying is perfectly OK.

If a company for instance was hosting on Comcasts network and they got big, should they be required to also hold connections with other networks to provide their product ?, that's like saying i have to pay every trucking company in the country to move my product to different states, financially it's stupid from a sellers perspective, and logistically it's stupid because you would need to maintain upkeep on redundancy that doesn't need to exist.

Come on BonezX if you know anything about Networks and Traffic, you should know there are always more than one way to get to a location. I worked in The Industry it has been a few years, but the basics are still there. Just because you have a Direct Connection doesn't mean you can't Route Advance to another Path like a Peering or Transit Provider to get to a location. So if Netflix is smart they can manage their Outgoing Traffic for Efficiency, Congestion, and Economy. Streaming Video takes up a lot of Bandwidth, and it's not going to get any better these Streaming Providers will have to manage their Networks better.


BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada
kudos:1

There is more the one way, and that's why people who are smart enough to use a VPN on Comcasts network can almost stream at 4k, but if they use the default routing they are stuck in buffering hell, not a smoking gun in this situation, but it definitely does not bode well(and Comcast likely has multiple paths out to the Cogent network, yet they still have congestion).

I know enough about networks to know there there is something rotten going on in upper management, because if the guys on the ground were consulted in any way shape or form, we wouldn't be having these conversations, as an IT guy at one of my jobs says "we are pretty much paid to be stupid", and at the end of the day, who do you want designing your car, the guys in accounting or the guys in engineering(GM/Chrysler would be a good example of this).



PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1
reply to BonezX

BonezX -- you are entirely wrong. Not even going into it.
--
Add a signature here