Netflix Has Woken Up To The Threat Of Metered Billing Starts Taking On ISPs In The U.S. And Canada Wednesday Feb 23 2011 14:30 EDT In July of last year Netflix launched a streaming only video option in Canada, which immediately raised the question of how well this service would play with the low bandwidth caps and high per gig overages common to most Canadian ISPs. Given that Netflix HD streaming potentially eats bandwidth like popcorn shrimp and Canadian ISPs like Cogeco and Rogers currently charge up to $5 per extra gigabyte of usage -- it seems inevitable that Netflix users and low caps won't get along as usage ramps up. Last December CEO Reed Hastings told attendees of an investor conference that Netflix "wasn't particularly concerned" with the ever-tightening meter noose. However in more recent months, Netflix has made it clear that they've woken up to the threat of an unreasonably-constricted pipe. In January Netflix declared that pay per byte on ever-cheaper terrestrial connectivity "was not economically necessary," something we've been arguing for several years as North American ISPs have lusted after more punitive pricing models. A shareholder statement goes so far as to suggest that the kind of per gig overages common in Canada are "grossly overpriced": quote:
Wired ISPs have large fixed costs of building and maintaining their last mile network of residential cable and fiber. The ISPs’ costs, however, to deliver a marginal gigabyte, which is about an hour of viewing, from one of our regional interchange points over their last mile wired network to the consumer is less than a penny, and falling, so there is no reason that pay-per-gigabyte is economically necessary. Moreover, at $1 per gigabyte over wired networks, it would be grossly overpriced.
Last week, Netflix's annual report touched on the Level 3 and Comcast fight for the first time, the report noting that ISPs have a very clear motivation for making Netflix's life more difficult: quote:
Most network operators that provide consumers with access to the Internet also provide these consumers with multichannel video programming. As such, companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision have an incentive to use their network infrastructure in a manner adverse to our continued growth and success.
Netflix's sudden call to arms on the metered billing discussion pivots on Canada, where the company offered a streaming-only video service last summer. As users in our Canadian broadband forums note, Netflix is jumping head first into the discussion in Canada surrounding UBB (usage-based billing), a new filing urging regulators to expand their inquiry into the need for UBB. That's in fairly stark contrast to earlier Netflix filings that had a more timid tone. Now Netflix is clearly urging Canadian regulators to dissect unproven talking points -- such as the fact that UBB is a matter of altruism, or that market forces can keep overage prices in check if the market isn't competitive. Netflix has woken from its doe-eyed slumber.Don't think the ISPs and their literal armies of lobbyists, think tankers, PR firms and other policy vessels haven't noticed Netflix's stronger stance. Groups like Digital Society, funded with AT&T money via the fine fauxcademics at Arts and Labs, has made Netflix an obvious target in recent months, with pieces attacking Netflix for " trying to get broadband customers to subsidize Netflix" or supposedly violating network neutrality by trying to get Netflix buttons on some remote controls. If Netflix wants to play in the DC arena and question some of the sacred incumbent ISP talking points (charging $5 per gigabyte is inevitable and about fairness!), you can expect this entire discussion to get much more entertaining as 2011 moves on. |
  AR
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON
1 recommendation |
When business models collide.....The telcos/cablecos want to maximize revenue as would Netflix through this medium of easier distribution model.
Would the telecoms be happy with a percent of Netflix's profit as a "levy"?
Rogers charges $7.99 for a HD movie purchased through it's on-demand service. NO WAY is it going to let Netflix get away with a $8.99/month flat rate for unlimited streaming. | |
|  |  baineschile2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI |
MaybeMaybe netflix can subsiduze the ISPs so they CAN offer unmetered billing? | |
| | |  MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON |
Re: Maybesaid by baineschile:Maybe netflix can subsiduze the ISPs so they CAN offer unmetered billing?
Why? Bandwidth at a flat rate is pennies per gigabyte in block purchases. And with peering agreements it works out to being next to free. This is all simply ISP's trying to milk customers for more. Either because they have a competing product(which charges more), or because they have competing ISP that already pays transit costs, and want to pillage more out of them. | |
| | | | | |
skuv
Anon
2011-Feb-23 4:57 pm
Re: Maybesaid by Mashiki:And with peering agreements it works out to being next to free.
Really, next to free? Have you ever priced out a 10gig or 100gig port on a router? How about a router linecard that has 4/8/16 10gig ports? Do you know how much those cost? (Hint: They aren't free.) Depending on the vendor being used, a singe port 100g linecard can be from $250k - $900k. And that is just one peering port. You'd obviously need more for bandwidth growth and redundancy. Also, paying employees to install, upgrade, and maintain the devices isn't free either. Maybe "next to free" means "$1 to a few million $" to you? And sure, you can spend that money to add peering ports, but then you also may need to upgrade the transport links from your peering router to the rest of your network to make up for the shift in traffic. That's hardly "free" either. Just because you don't agree with who wants who to pay for the bandwidth doesn't mean that you can use the argument that your opponent's network ports are "free." | |
| | | | | | |
Re: MaybeAll the thing you brought up goes into the category of system upgrades, and maintenance. which is pretty much paid for by customers.
What hes saying is for the actually bandwidth between the isp's are nearly free because nether side has to pay each other for the bandwidth. It's going to be the same for both sides (paying for the installation and upgrades), once the connection is setup, it'll pay for itself without these insane overages. | |
| | | | | | WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
2 recommendations |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 7:28 pm
Re: MaybeWhen you upgrade a network you normally double the bandwidth capacity but you do not double the revenue. Most of the bandwidth sits idle. One CEO reported the demand from customers was doubling every year but revenues only increased by 3 to 5 %.
When communication equipment gets close to 100% they have to add equipment which is normally the same piece of equipment. That now means you now are only using 50% but your cost have doubled until you bring in more customers. If the current customers just use up that capacity with more downloads you don't get any more money.
If you started a taxi company and sold a flat rate service to a family but they added enough kids to require a second taxi your expenses have doubled but not your revenue. That is what the ISPs are doing with caps they are charging for the extra kids. Video has changed the equations all on the cost side the internet is no longer e-mail and web pages.
I look for bills to have 3 parts in the future like wireless. One for the connection, one for the speed, and one for the amount of usage in tiers like speed. You may want speed but low usage or low speed but a lot of usage or high speed and high usage. I don't download a lot and I am tired of paying for those that download more then 500 meg every month and pay the same price. | |
| | | | | | | MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON |
Re: Maybe500 megs huh? Bet you're really hurting to know that the lastest and greatest service pack for Win7 weighed in at nearly 1GB. Whether you like it or not, welcome to the digital world. If you're not using much now, in 5 years you will be. | |
| | | | | | | nonymous (banned)
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ |
to WhatNow
said by WhatNow: I look for bills to have 3 parts in the future like wireless. One for the connection, one for the speed, and one for the amount of usage in tiers like speed. You may want speed but low usage or low speed but a lot of usage or high speed and high usage. I don't download a lot and I am tired of paying for those that download more then 500 meg every month and pay the same price.
Not with my cable I can not. I have usage caps or will have them. they are being rolled out. They are high enough for my usage levels and I do have netflix. Sorry you only use your connection for email and boring dslreports. Probably stay away from any forums here that would use any bandwidth. | |
|
| | | | |  SpaethCoDigital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN |
to KnightAR
said by KnightAR:What hes saying is for the actually bandwidth between the isp's are nearly free because nether side has to pay each other for the bandwidth. That's because large ISPs build out their own transit networks and interconnect at every major exchange in the US. These networks choose not to charge each other settlement fees because there is a determination that for an end-to-end IP conversation passing between the networks each company is sharing a reasonable burden of cost. It isn't "free" - the costs are just internal. Compared to taking a taxi, driving your car is also free. It's the same deal. | |
|
| | | | MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON |
to skuv
Well if you had a clue, you'd know that's hardware. Not bandwidth. Bandwidth is effectively free between ISP's, with either no transit costs, or a low peer exchange cost. So yes, bandwidth is free, or next to no cost.
Tip: I did work for an ISP in this area back in the late 90's, before the explosion of information. And even then the transit costs across the 2nd backbone we used when we hit capacity on our primary link was 4.1c/GB. Our primary had no cost outside of hardware and maintenance. | |
| | | | | | | |
annonymiss
Anon
2011-Feb-24 3:54 pm
Re: MaybeHey, can I send you my power bill? Since you seem to think electricity is free.
Or how about my Dentist bill? Yeah, there's zero cost to maintain myself.
Hmm, please send me a Gas credit card too that you will pay for, since it costs nothing for you to drive around I guess.
Yeah, the costs of an ISP is nothing right? They don't maintain power to devices to push the bits. Or pay guys to go out and fix and install and maintain the lines. | |
|
| | | |  r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX |
r81984 to skuv
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 10:07 pm
to skuv
said by skuv :said by Mashiki:And with peering agreements it works out to being next to free.
Really, next to free? Have you ever priced out a 10gig or 100gig port on a router? How about a router linecard that has 4/8/16 10gig ports? Do you know how much those cost? (Hint: They aren't free.) Depending on the vendor being used, a singe port 100g linecard can be from $250k - $900k. And that is just one peering port. You'd obviously need more for bandwidth growth and redundancy. Also, paying employees to install, upgrade, and maintain the devices isn't free either. Maybe "next to free" means "$1 to a few million $" to you? And sure, you can spend that money to add peering ports, but then you also may need to upgrade the transport links from your peering router to the rest of your network to make up for the shift in traffic. That's hardly "free" either. Just because you don't agree with who wants who to pay for the bandwidth doesn't mean that you can use the argument that your opponent's network ports are "free." FYI those costs are the same if you never use your connection or if you use your connection 24/7. Either way the ISP has to pay for all the hardware and support. Just because you use your connection more than other customer does not mean they should pay less than you. | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: MaybeAll these arguments about network equipment being expensive is irrelevant to the argument of why we need UBB to cover said costs.
Network equipment costs the same per unit of equipment from the same vendor be it in Canada, the US, or anywhere else in the world (let's ignore shipping fees). Even from different competing vendors costs should on average be quite similar. Same for cabling, labor and so on, these won't vary by such huge numbers as to be considered significant.
So with that in mind, why then is my friend in the Netherlands paying under 100$ Canadian for an unmetered, symetric 100 Mbps fiber hookup, with the choice to pay more for a 1 Gbps. While I'm here paying about 60$ a month for 5 Mbps with a monthly cap and a crappy 800 Kbps upload, which gets throttled at the slightest hint of torrent which I have to use regularly for work to get linux distros.
Hardware costs are not the reason for UBB.
Congestion is not the reason for UBB.
If those were valid reasons for UBB we wouldn't be one of the only countries in the world with such limitations. | |
|
| | | | nitzan
Premium Member
join:2008-02-27 |
nitzan to skuv
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 11:59 pm
to skuv
said by skuv :Have you ever priced out a 10gig or 100gig port on a router? As mentioned already- the ISP is going to need to pay for the equipment anyway - regardless if anyone uses it or not. The ONLY way your argument is valid is if they need to pay for increased capacity to support more load, but let's get into that: Realistically speaking, if one hour of streaming is 1GB according to Netflix, let's assume an average user would stream an hour a day. So that's a "whopping" 30GB a month. 1GB / 24 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds = 12.13KByte/second on average. So by that logic a 100gig port can support over a million users on average. Yes- if you account for usage peaks and such it's probably more like half of that, but come on - 500k users. Even if the equipment costs $500k that's still only $1 per user one time cost - for a user who's paying something like $50 a month. Even in the most pessimistic scenario the ISPs aren't exactly hurting here. It's all just a scheme to prevent competition and as such should be illegal. | |
| | | | | | SpaethCoDigital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit
1 recommendation |
Re: Maybesaid by nitzan:said by skuv :Have you ever priced out a 10gig or 100gig port on a router? As mentioned already- the ISP is going to need to pay for the equipment anyway - regardless if anyone uses it or not. That argument works for 1x10Gig connection, but unfortunately that's not at all what we're talking about here. It's not like there is 1 massive router that makes up an ISPs Internet connection -- they're going to need to buy interfaces on anywhere from dozens to hundreds of devices because that traffic all has to go somewhere. Increases in usage mean upgrades in capacity at pretty much every layer of the network from the Internet border, through the core, out to the customer edge. said by nitzan:Realistically speaking, if one hour of streaming is 1GB according to Netflix, let's assume an average user would stream an hour a day. So that's a "whopping" 30GB a month. 1GB / 24 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds = 12.13KByte/second on average. So by that logic a 100gig port can support over a million users on average. Yes- if you account for usage peaks and such it's probably more like half of that, but come on - 500k users. Even if the equipment costs $500k that's still only $1 per user one time cost - for a user who's paying something like $50 a month. We're talking about more than $500k -- by a lot. I swag'd some numbers just in relation to Comcast a few weeks ago: » Re: [Caps] the dreaded call - 1,817GYou are trying to apply 24 hour average numbers to real-time consumption. If Netflix needs 1.5mbps to stream video per feed, it doesn't matter if someone is watching 5 seconds or 5 hours of video, the network needs to provide 1.5mbps to that user for the service to work. Network scaling needs to be done according to concurrent network needs. As someone who operates a VoIP service, it blows my mind that you're not accounting for concurrency. said by nitzan:Even in the most pessimistic scenario the ISPs aren't exactly hurting here. It's all just a scheme to prevent competition and as such should be illegal. It's not that simple -- video streaming is something absolutely massive. Netflix instant accounts for 20 percent of all non-mobile internet use during prime time in the United States, according to a new study.
Streaming media — real-time entertainment — accounts for 43% of peak period traffic in the U.S., according to Sandvine, which helps ISPs manage their networks and thus has access to buckets of information about usage patterns.
But Netflix alone accounts for nearly half of that between 8 and 10 p.m., and that usage comes from only 1.8 percent of the service’s subscribers. Source: »www.wired.com/epicenter/ ··· ith-use/ Netflix has 16 million total subscribers, so that means that about 288,000 folks streaming from Netflix are driving 20% of Internet bandwidth consumption on a nightly basis in the US. | |
| | | | | | | |
dmca 512i to nitzan
Anon
2011-Feb-24 8:16 am
to nitzan
Except you are making a big mistake by calculating that 1GB over 24 hours. Peak of Netflix traffic comes around 8PM, and the network has to be built to handle the peak. So let's say 1GB comes in one hour. NOT spaced evenly over 24. Now you're at 277KB/s, much higher than 12.13KB/s you figured.
That's why they say Netflix is 20% of traffic 'at peak.' A tiny number of users is having a big impact, because they are synchronized. | |
| | | | | | | nitzan
Premium Member
join:2008-02-27 |
nitzan
Premium Member
2011-Feb-24 9:00 am
Re: Maybesaid by dmca 512i :Except you are making a big mistake by calculating that 1GB over 24 hours. Peak of Netflix traffic comes around 8PM, and the network has to be built to handle the peak. So let's say 1GB comes in one hour. NOT spaced evenly over 24. Now you're at 277KB/s, much higher than 12.13KB/s you figured. Peak or no peak - not every single subscriber is going to watch it exactly at 8pm. Yes- a lot, maybe even most will - but NOT ALL. Yes- network upgrades will be needed. Yes- they cost money. But ISPs are going to need to upgrade ANYWAY. The demand is there. ISPs can either be idiots and try to prevent consumption growth - but in the end it's going to happen whether they like it or not. You can't go against what the customer wants and win - not for long at least. ISPs will eventually either start giving the user what they want (streaming video) - or they're not going to have customers eventually. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
annonymiss
Anon
2011-Feb-24 3:57 pm
Re: MaybeI have super bad news for you.
People get home and watch tv, and go on the internet.
Right now, they have a seperate pipe for both.
How much money do you think it will cost to replace 1 way TV bandwidth with 2way internet that people dumbly want to transport crap TV pictures over?
Yeah, makes lot's of sense to do that. | |
|
| | | | |
1 recommendation |
to nitzan
Regardless of how much the equipment costs, there is STILL CONSTANT MAINTANANCE of the networks all the way to the consumer end. Some of you completely ignore this massive cost to the MSO's.
The MSO's stand to lose a TON of money as their TV revenues erode away to Netflix, amazon, Hulu etc. Wouldnt it make sense to bill per usage ? I find it to be more unfair for across the board price increases even to those who subscribe to Cable TV. One way or another they WILL get their money to maintain and improve their networks. Billing according to consumption is just more fair IMO. I think Netflix' days are numbered. | |
| | | | | | | nitzan
Premium Member
join:2008-02-27 |
nitzan
Premium Member
2011-Feb-24 11:56 pm
Re: Maybesaid by ITALIAN926:The MSO's stand to lose a TON of money as their TV revenues erode away to Netflix, amazon, Hulu etc. You know, the only reason they're going to lose a ton of money to Netflix etc. is because THEY - internet providers - don't offer the same streaming service. Consumers want online streaming TV. If the choice is between Netflix streaming or Comcast streaming how much do you wanna bet Comcast is going to have far more customers? The demand is there and was there for a very long time. Internet providers could easily build their own streaming service and keep the revenue in house. Not to mention doing it in-house is going to cost less than getting the content from a 3rd party over the internet. Basically subscribers will be getting the content from local hubs which means very little overall congestion increase for the network and not even too much need for network upgrades. This isn't about the cost of maintaining the network. If that were the issue then it would be as simple as building their own in-house service. This is ONLY about internet providers who are also TV service providers and don't want to lose the (inflated) TV revenue. Offer the same service as Netflix and voila- problem solved. (of course, revenue will decrease on the TV side - but that will happen ANYWAY because users are going to move to online solutions) You can't fight progress. Either go with it and adapt, or go out of business. Even if they manage to buy a few politicians to support their case now - once enough people get pissed off at the government limiting progress - this will change. | |
| | | | | | | r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX |
to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:Billing according to consumption is just more fair IMO. I think Netflix' days are numbered.
That makes no sense since regardless if you use your connection sparingly or all the time it costs the same to the cable company. Do you think the equipment and physical lines are free just because you use your connection less. FYI, the cable company charges less for internet if you bundle it with cable tv. If you cancel cable TV and use online video you will pay the cable ISP more for your internet connection to pay for the lines and equipment. Netflix numbered?? LOL. You do realize that cable companies are not the only ISPs right??? The government will have to regulate the internet and all ISPs even cable companies will not be able to limit it no more. | |
|
| |  firephotoTruth and reality matters
Premium Member
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
1 recommendation |
to baineschile
said by baineschile:Maybe netflix can subsiduze the ISPs so they CAN offer unmetered billing?
Maybe the ISPs should quit pretending to sell internet and let people know the list of acceptable content they can access? | |
|
|  Sr Tech
Premium Member
join:2003-01-19
Meriden, CT |
Sr Tech to AR
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 2:39 pm
to AR
Re: When business models collide.....I agree, in a sense the telcos and cable providers also distribute TV as we all ready know. They are trying to kill Netflix as it has what I need in stead of paying for pricey plans from main providers. The only way they can drive people away from Netflix is to start initiating caps and other scrupulous ways of collecting more money in order to keep you on their plans. | |
| |  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5 to AR
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 2:42 pm
to AR
said by AR:The telcos/cablecos want to maximize revenue as would Netflix through this medium of easier distribution model.
Would the telecoms be happy with a percent of Netflix's profit as a "levy"?
Rogers charges $7.99 for a HD movie purchased through it's on-demand service. NO WAY is it going to let Netflix get away with a $8.99/month flat rate for unlimited streaming.
Kind of arrogant of Netflix to think that their business plan is somehow morally superior to the cable companies business plans. They each are trying to maximize profits and are at conflicting purposes. The smart thing would be a compromise, but then the net neutrality hardliners would go nuts if Netflix decided to go that route by making a deal with the cable companies. | |
| | | jjeffeoryjjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN |
Re: When business models collide........and the customer is caught in the middle... Screw the customer! Long live the king! | |
| | | | FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 5:50 pm
Re: When business models collide.....said by jjeffeory:...and the customer is caught in the middle... Screw the customer! Long live the king!
You are going to pay no matter what. The fight is over how Netflix and the cable company are going to divide up the revenue. | |
|
| | r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX |
r81984 to FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 10:13 pm
to FFH5
said by FFH5:said by AR:The telcos/cablecos want to maximize revenue as would Netflix through this medium of easier distribution model.
Would the telecoms be happy with a percent of Netflix's profit as a "levy"?
Rogers charges $7.99 for a HD movie purchased through it's on-demand service. NO WAY is it going to let Netflix get away with a $8.99/month flat rate for unlimited streaming.
Kind of arrogant of Netflix to think that their business plan is somehow morally superior to the cable companies business plans. They each are trying to maximize profits and are at conflicting purposes. The smart thing would be a compromise, but then the net neutrality hardliners would go nuts if Netflix decided to go that route by making a deal with the cable companies. Why do they have to make a deal with cable companies???? Netflix pays for their internet connections. Netflix customers pay for their internet connections. Why should cable companies get any money out of this???? ISP that are also cable companies are using caps to try and stop internet competition with their cable services, that is just BS. The vast majority of ISPs have been unlimited for the last 15 years, why would we revert to pre 1995 and starting having capped internet??? | |
| | | | | |
Re: When business models collide.....Because they can potentially lose 33% of their revenue Einstein... lol | |
| | | | | r81984Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2011-Feb-24 10:29 pm
Re: When business models collide.....said by ITALIAN926:Because they can potentially lose 33% of their revenue Einstein... lol
Cable companies are not the internet. If cable companies do not like online content competing with their tv services then they should not offer internet. Since companies are showing they want to limit the internet we are going to need government regulations to protect the internet. What cable companies are doing with the internet is like selling you a car then after the fact trying to limit how many miles you can drive or where you can drive. | |
|
| | |
to AR
$8.99 for unlimited streaming. Does Netflix have to pay a fee to these studios every time someone downloads a movie? If so, how could this possibly be profitable? If not, are they illegally distributing these copyrighted works? lol | |
| | | AR
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON |
Re: When business models collide.....Make it $7.99 actually for unlimited movies and TV shows... » ca.netflix.com/ | |
|
 tempnexus
Premium Member
join:1999-08-11
Boston, MA |
Damn the torpedos Less speed ahead!I honestly think that we should all downgrade to the good old days of 9600k bandwith.
That way we would solve tremendous amount of problems.
1) Data Breaches would be a lot more difficult and lot less data would be lost.
2) A 5gig cap and $1 per 1 Gig would actually be worth it.
3) People would quit playing MMO's and actually go outside.
4) I can finally use my CGA monitor! | |
|  J E F F4Whatta Ya Think About Dat?
Premium Member
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON |
J E F F4
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 2:41 pm
Cable and satellite companies will fight Netflix...Competition is bad for the cable and satellite companies - it hinders them from their quarterly price increase(s). Hope Netflix can figure this mess out...for all our sakes. | |
| |
••••••••••••••••• |  vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 2:49 pm
How would the ISP's feel...How would the ISP's feel about Netflix starting a competing ISP? Not sure they'd appreciate someone controlling both content and distribution. They might even cry antitrust. I'd like to see it, actually. | |
| |
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• | | |
One needs to read Interstate Commerce Commission rate tables  Netflix pays to have their physical media delivered. If one reviews the ICC rate tables they will find the ICC provided different rates to deliver different types of commodities. The simplest thing would regulate ISP's and set rates for different types of data carried exempting some from any fees. Consumers should be exempt from caps and from paying for overages. | |
| | |
hwstar
Anon
2011-Feb-23 3:10 pm
Netflix should Overbuild an internet only serviceThis is the only way to put Telcos and Cable Cos in their place. It would be an expensive undertaking so it probably would never happen. | |
|  AkFubarAdmittedly, A Teksavvy Fan
join:2005-02-28
Toronto CAN. |
The Real Power is Ordinary PeopleStrength in numbers. Consumers can effect policy change. You can only poke a passive dog with a pointed stick so many times before it fights back. Until consumers have had enough of getting nicked and dimed the raping will continue. | |
| Paxio
Premium Member
join:2011-02-23
Santa Clara, CA
1 recommendation |
Paxio
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 3:25 pm
Bring it onWe welcome the traffic Netflix generates. It means more happy customers on our network! I do wish, however, we could get a direct cross-connect to Netflix in the datacenter so the traffic bypasses our (purchased) Internet transport. If the Netflix load becomes measurable on the network we will pursue it. | |
| |
•••• |  amarryatVerizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA |
Maybe the ISPs should try to competeAnd that doesn't mean by thwarting the competition (ie imposing caps). Maybe they could launch their own "free" movies package for $8.99/month to compete with Netflix. | |
| | | |
Re: Maybe the ISPs should try to competei do not think they are smart enough to compete with netflix.
they the big ISP can be greedy little corporates | |
|
 IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman
join:2000-09-20
Washington, DC |
I stand with Netflix...I stand with Netflix because I love how nervous it makes these other Cable and Telco dinosaurs.
I have now made it my mission to bankrupt AT&T with my unlimited dataplan on my iPhone 4 using Netflix. | |
| |  elwoodbluesElwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in |
Re: I stand with Netflix...said by IPPlanMan:I stand with Netflix because I love how nervous it makes these other Cable and Telco dinosaurs.
I have now made it my mission to bankrupt AT&T with my unlimited dataplan on my iPhone 4 using Netflix.
Unlimited on an IPhone.. nice... but you know what? I use my phone ALOT, internet, streaming Sirius, and when my internet connection has problems I tether... when I push it and push it hard, I rarely get past 3gb. The only use for me would be to get rid of my internet at home, and tether the phone. | |
| | | |
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America |
amungus
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 5:12 pm
Just one thing(It didnt' seem like) ISPs grumbled so much when folks ate bandwidth up like crack with "other" services.
Now that there's a legal video service, which people also eat up like crack, it's a "problem" for them?
From promoting the heck out of their services as a way to experience online media, to running scared when it actually comes, in legal and presentable form no less, is just lame.
Which way is it? You can't go back on your word, especially not after increasing 'speed' for all this time.
I still witness ads from Cox touting their "increases in speed, year over year" - OK, well, people are going to use the sh|t out of it, just like one should be expected to...
People were/are "sold" on turbo internet for the very things that it was/is marketed to them as being able to do; video, music, education, work, play, emailing, chatting, blogging, whatever else...
Either give up the 'speed' increases for a little while and worry about the "supposed" infrastructure issues, or deal with it. Maybe instead of crying about it, lobbying insanely, and acting like brats, ISPs could muster up more workable partnerships with these media companies and everyone would be happy...
Comcast, for example, had a "branded" form of Rhapsody, as did other ISPs... why not cozy up to Netflix or some other service(s)??? That's just one thought... It's better to make a little extra money than -NO- extra money, right? Isn't it also more beneficial to form a positive impression with customers/potential customers than one of negativity? | |
| |  DocDrewHow can I help?
Premium Member
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
Technicolor TC4400
Linksys EA6900
|
DocDrew
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 5:26 pm
Re: Just one thingsaid by amungus:(It didnt' seem like) ISPs grumbled so much when folks ate bandwidth up like crack with "other" services.
Now that there's a legal video service, which people also eat up like crack, it's a "problem" for them? Did you miss the battles over "network management" and torrent dropping happening the last 5 years? said by amungus:Comcast, for example, had a "branded" form of Rhapsody, as did other ISPs... why not cozy up to Netflix or some other service(s)???
You mean like this? » www.fancast.com | |
| | | amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America |
amungus
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 6:34 pm
Re: Just one thingGreat question actually, but no, I didn't miss those battles.
"Network management" hasn't ended up meaning "UBB" until now, which was more my point.
Sure there were arguments about usage, but it was never to this point now that a single company can be focused upon as a big red target (Netflix). Canada actually trying to force 25GB caps on people was completely crazy IMO...
Fancast - sure, I guess, there are plenty of ways for ISPs to offer "extras" if they want and take a little slice of the pie, so to speak. | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Zoom 5341J
|
KrK
Premium Member
2011-Feb-23 6:44 pm
This is the USA.....Netflix is doomed. This is the USA! We can't have real competition here!.... taking on all the entrenched Telecom giants is a legal money pit nobody, not even Google, can afford.
Netflix is right, but the pessimist and realist in me tells me they won't win.... and as a result, we'll all lose.
Well, at least there's still DVD's by mail... assuming the legal fights don't bankrupt them outright. | |
| | |
Mr Nobody
Anon
2011-Feb-23 7:11 pm
Netflix joins us in throwing a spear at the Wooly Mammoth!The wonder of Moore's Law shifts power to the edges of the network reducing the value of the network to be that of mere plumbing. Yet that plumbing too, benefits. With the rise, acceptance, and use of the network at greater speeds by more people the potential for massive change increases. The huge incumbents, lost in a dimension where control and rationing are the order of the day, feel the need to constrain and ration further. Not realizing that the growth allows them to leverage the world and not just the small market in their snow dusted country. The knee-jerk attempt to artificially protect the content that these plumbers also provides is doomed to failure: Just as the reign of any tyrant or dictator lasts as long as the people choose to be ruled. We have laws that can divest the incumbents of that conflict and where not; we will make them. We rule this country. Not the corporations. "--Software hardens at the core of a network--hardens into glass--pure fiber. Hardware softens at the edge into programmable forms. Consider the change from hardwired TVs and telephones into programmable PCs and handheld teleputers." -- George Gilder from a Forbes Magazine article 2007 (» www.discovery.org/a/3852) Bell/Rogers have made Canada a laughing stock of the world in terms of broadband access by not re-investing enough in their wireline networks and or lying about the problems they're having in order to protect that natural conflict of interest with the content they also provide. Come hell or high water this will be rectified. sigh. Or Bell ties it up in litigation for 2o.0 years...and our politicians fumble about like they usually do. | |
| | |
i've said itI've said this would happen. But the "have mines" said it was just paranoia and pointless to worry about such silly things..
When it starts to possibly threaten "yours" it becomes an issue of concern...
Oh well, as many have said, the market will shift its way out "dur hur hur". | |
| gunther_01
Premium Member
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL |
Cry me a riverAfter reading most of these comments it's so terribly biased towards "give me it, it's mine" it's unbelievable.
Internet does have costs. It's access, it's delivery, maintenance Etc. All of those things add up to costs. Most companies out there are NOT given free access to Internet pipes, since they don't provide back bone infrastructure to one another, and share those systems. The majority of providers are "last mile" providers. Netflix does NOT have a "small" system for caching content. It's only if your ISP can a direct connection to CDN's that you may have that ability.
The previously mentioned "water pipe" analogy is ABSOLUTELY accurate. And can any one tell me what would happen if everyone in a town turned on their faucets in their home at the same time?? You would have no pressure to do anything. You would run out of water after the water tower goes dry. Oh, and everyone gets sick from water contamination.
Internet delivery is the exact same way. The infrastructure has to be built to handle that delivery. Most ISP's networks are not designed to handle that. Most of the current technologies can't support last mile usage that customers are asking for. Not at the same time, or not at peak times. There is a very simple model called "over subscription" that has been in use by ISP's since the very beggining. That's how they are able to offer you $30/month Internet access. We literally over subscribe price wise 10:1 what we pay for our Internet access. That does not include anything else other then our costs for Internet access our selves.
Bottom line, even if you won't accept it, is that you don't pay "full price" for your Internet connection. You wouldn't.. because it's many times higher then you think it's worth. Enter bill by the byte.. If you want it, pay for it. If you actually believe, and have been brain washed to "think" Netflix's numbers for delivery of content are accurate, you have worse problems in your life then an Internet connection that is NOT a right to have. It's an amenity, that you pay for. Just because you paid Netflix, doesn't mean you won't have to pay someone else to deliver it to you in the manner that Netflix and the motion picture lawyers require it to be delivered. In a non-stored, streaming fashion, that takes resources away from legitimate usage of others. It costs us more to deliver it to you via our network, then Netflix pays for postage to ship you a DVD. | |
| |
•••• | | |
annonymiss
Anon
2011-Feb-24 3:49 pm
As soon as..So when is Netflix going to start paying franchise fees for being a video distribution company?
All ISPs and video providers pay taxes in the states they opperate in, does Netflix? Does google?
Every penny of metered data gets taxed by the state, and they get the money they deserve for this service that way.
The internet is grown up now, it's time for the free ride to end. Amazon, Netflix, Google, etc etc etc ALL have to start paying the taxes they should be, just like every other buisness that sells things in a state do.
Watch how quiet Netflix gets if US ISPs start bringing that up. | |
| | |
Mr Nobody
Anon
2011-Feb-24 10:42 pm
Did I say 'wooly'? I meant: WOOLLY!An ocean of tears will get expended: WE ALREADY PAY! It's acknowledged that we must pay for what we use! We allow over-subscription levels that are rational and in-line with WORLD standards. We will NOT allow over-subscriptions in the magnitude that Bell and regional cable companies are proposing! Is Canada that backward that the subscription levels need to be 1500:1? 2000:1? 10,000:1? Get real. Our access fees have been according adequate profit and network upgrades to this point in time. Suddenly, Netflix comes to Canada and the caps get lowered dramatically? A boogeyman is made of the 'heavy user' -- never mind that these lowered caps allow further over-subscription of the network. Never mind that the goal is to change the mindset of the Canadian people from thinking the net is something to be used to something that must be conserved?
Our expectation as people isn't irrational. We have paid for a service in good faith. Now that we want to use it, suddenly that service costs more? No. Not on. | |
| |
••• | | |
Netflix will end up partnering with the telcosLet them co-brand Netflix for a slighty higher price and unlimited caps | |
|
| |
|
|
Netflix pays to have their physical media delivered. If one reviews the ICC rate tables they will find the ICC provided different rates to deliver different types of commodities. The simplest thing would regulate ISP's and set rates for different types of data carried exempting some from any fees. Consumers should be exempt from caps and from paying for overages. 
