Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Dopefish on Tuesday February 25 2014, @12:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the so-much-for-fighting-the-good-fight dept.

c0lo writes:

"Many news outlets announced that Netflix agreed to pay Comcast for smoother network access.

The deal, which has been nearly a year in the making, would give Netflix direct access to Comcast's high-speed network, the two companies confirmed Sunday.

Under this new deal, Netflix will access Comcast's network directly or, almost directly, according to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the news this afternoon. 'Under the deal, Netflix won't be able to place its servers inside Comcast's data centers, which Netflix had wanted,' the paper explains. 'Instead, Comcast will connect to Netflix's servers at data centers operated by other companies.'

The agreement is a surprise because Netflix could have used the issue as leverage while Comcast attempts to acquire Time Warner Cable Inc., an industry researcher said. 'I would have thought Netflix would have held out with the Time Warner Cable deal looming,' Craig Moffett, founder of research firm MoffettNathanson LLC, said in an interview. 'Netflix can ask for whatever it wants and has a reasonable shot at getting conditions put on the merger that could provide it with long-term benefit. On the other hand, that could be precisely what spurred this deal that Comcast was willing to settle with Netflix for a relatively low price to make the Netflix problem go away ahead of the regulatory review.'"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by visaris on Tuesday February 25 2014, @12:11AM

    by visaris (2041) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @12:11AM (#6298) Journal

    So the compromise was for Comcast and Netlix to get a third party to operate a data center close to Comcast, and have that third party house Netflix's CDN servers? I suppose there would be more latency than if the servers were directly in Comcast's datacenters, but it shouldn't matter much for streaming videos. This sounds more or less like Netflix getting what it wants: servers close to Comcast so the load from streaming data can stay (mostly) on Comcast's network. I was under the impression that Netflix does this with many ISPs.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bucc5062 on Tuesday February 25 2014, @12:16AM

      by bucc5062 (699) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @12:16AM (#6300)

      But is this Comcast fleecing Netflix for more money to use the connections the already pay for or is it Netflix paying to upgrade the connection. If the former then welcome to the new internet where mob rule takes on a new meaning. If the latter, then it still does not seem a great deal for Netflix for then they would need to to the same for each ISP. Either way, let us all wave goodbye to net neutrality. A do nothing government, a unknowing (or uncaring) public will let it slide into a cable model.

      I heard this driving home from work (on NPR, about that last reasonable good news outlet left) and just felt sad.

      --
      The more things change, the more they look the same
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:41AM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:41AM (#6321) Journal

        But is this Comcast fleecing Netflix for more money to use the connections the already pay for or is it Netflix paying to upgrade the connection.

        A third alternative is that Comcast, in light of wide reporting of their slowing Netflix traffic, finally dropped the price to something Netflix could swallow.

        Its hard to know who blinked here. I think we won't know for years.

        Comcast not wanting Netflix servers in their data centers is probably a defensive move to keep all the other such services from demanding similar accommodations.

        Curiouser and curiouser.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday February 25 2014, @05:37AM

          by Angry Jesus (182) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @05:37AM (#6415)

          A third alternative is that Comcast, in light of wide reporting of their slowing Netflix traffic, finally dropped the price to something Netflix could swallow.

          Given that Comcast really really really wants to buy Time-Warner and wants to fool the FTC into believing that it won't be anti-competitive, I think that they were under a lot of pressure to make this issue go away.

          Verizon, on the other hand, isn't facing any such scrutiny and so will continue to screw over their own customers. They don't really give a shit about them anyways - all FiOS development has been frozen for a couple of years now anyway since verizon thinks its more profitable to spend it on cell phone customers who at least have an oligopoly to choose from instead of the typical broadband monopoly.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday February 25 2014, @07:59PM

        by edIII (791) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @07:59PM (#6882)

        This is such total bullshit. Concede what? Netflix is not evil here.

        Netflix operates its own god damned Content Delivery Network

        The "moral high ground" the carriers supposedly have is their horrible burden of costly traffic on them. This is bullshit. Most people here know why. Peering and Transit Agreements. Any network receiving Netflix generated traffic to one of their customers is being paid both ways. Their customer compensates them (they can't complain about the rates - no sympathy for overselling) *and* their PAT compensates them as well. That PAT cost is transferred all the way back to the originating network, and NETFLIX pays it.

        Only ONE carrier can rightfully complain about anything and that would be the one single solitary network that Netflix operates on.

        But wait, there's more.... Netflix is not on a single solitary network. They spent $50 million in 2009 on 3rd party CDN's, and now with their very own Open Connect, may be spending 10 times more. I can't find anything on line or in the filings at the moment.

        So Netflix is in fact ponying up metric crap tons of cash per day to carriers for the bandwidth, and doing so with the efficiency in terms of both cost and network traffic. They've been doing so for at least 5 years. Not a recent development.

        The carriers are whiny entitled little brats that are being affected by an obvious reason. Since Netflix has created so much damn traffic, their own networks are now saturated with it. However, they are being paid for it. However again, they are only being paid what they get from vastly overselling their own networks....

        GREED.

        Netflix is absolutely guilty of one thing. Lowering the profit margins of the carriers by reducing the ridiculous amount of money they get for selling something that doesn't even exist, their "unlimited" bandwidth.

        Sorry guys. I know it sucks when you sold 10 billion apples, and those bastards your customers, come and nicely ask for the all the apples they bought.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by bah on Tuesday February 25 2014, @12:17AM

      by bah (1610) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @12:17AM (#6301)

      Yeah, this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. This has to do with Cogent being Netflix's ISP and cogent having limited bandwidth to peer networks. To avoid that problem, Netflix has servers directly connected to other major ISPs.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by dmc on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:28AM

        by dmc (188) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:28AM (#6317)

        Yeah, this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.

        That is not strictly true. While perhaps based on what I've read so far, it may be in some sense technically true, even if that is the case, it seems to be a split-hair away from not being true. Let me quote some from the FCC-10-201 Net Neutrality Document [fcc.gov]

        page-11 "
        The record in this proceeding reveals that broadband providers potentially face at least three types of incentives to reduce the current openness of the Internet. First, broadband providers may have economic incentives to block or otherwise disadvantage specific edge providers or classes of edge providers, for example by controlling the transmission of network traffic over a broadband connection, including the price and quality of access to end users. A broadband provider might use this power to benefit its own or affiliated offerings at the expense of unaffiliated offerings.46
        "

        page-15 "
        24.
        Second, broadband providers may have incentives to increase revenues by charging edge providers, who already pay for their own connections to the Internet,62 for access or prioritized access to end users.63 Although broadband providers have not historically imposed such fees, they have argued they should be permitted to do so.64 A broadband provider could force edge providers to pay inefficiently high fees because that broadband provider is typically an edge provider's only option for reaching a particular end user.65 Thus broadband providers have the ability to act as gatekeepers.66
        "

        So while maybe some lawyers might agree with your assessment, I think it is disengenous outside of a court to make as bold a statement as you did about the situation.

        • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Tuesday February 25 2014, @02:31AM

          by evilviper (1760) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @02:31AM (#6340) Homepage Journal

          That is not strictly true. While perhaps based on what I've read so far, it may be in some sense technically true, even if that is the case, it seems to be a split-hair away from not being true.

          I'm glad you cleared that up...

          --
          Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
          • (Score: 5, Informative) by dmc on Tuesday February 25 2014, @02:35AM

            by dmc (188) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @02:35AM (#6342)

            I'm glad you cleared that up...

            I wish I could say I'm glad you didn't find something more useful to discuss about my comment than that.

            Upon further consideration, I'll be happy to recant the preface of my informative comment and instead say-

            Of course this has to do with network neutrality. The fact that the public has no transparency into the deal as far as what amount of money Netflix paid for precisely what access, is exactly why the transparency rule was central to Network Neutrality.

            Happy now? :)

      • (Score: 1) by forsythe on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:15AM

        by forsythe (831) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:15AM (#6360)

        I was under the impression that this deal was, in large, brought about by Comcast imposing new bandwidth caps on Netflix, and that such action would be directly against Net Neutrality. So there is a problem unrelated to Net Neutrality (the one you stated), a solution to that problem is being implemented, and this story discusses that solution, but that problem is not (significantly) causing the symptom "Netflix is slow". This symptom will, in all probability, vanish at about the same time the solution is implemented, however.

        If I'm mistaken, why did "Netflix is slow" only recently show up? Did Netflix's growth finally overwhelm Cogent's bandwidth, or something like that?

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by DuganCent on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:29AM

    by DuganCent (1732) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:29AM (#6319)

    I have Comcast 25/5 and Netflix was never a problem for me. That said, I only have a 720p TV.

    I wonder if it was regional?

    • (Score: 2) by randmcnatt on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:58AM

      by randmcnatt (671) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:58AM (#6325)

      We have a 1080p TV but only have a Wii and a 165 KB DSL connection and never had any problem with Netflix.

      --
      The Wright brothers were not the first to fly: they were the first to land.
      • (Score: 1) by nightsky30 on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:36PM

        by nightsky30 (1818) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:36PM (#6593)

        The Wii is limited to 480p.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by guises on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:37AM

      by guises (3116) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:37AM (#6368)

      Yes. This was a problem in specific areas where Cogent had peering connections with ISPs that refused to upgrade, in lieu of money from Cogent. I know from another article that there were eleven cities like that with Verizon, I don't know how many with Comcast.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by nightsky30 on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:28PM

      by nightsky30 (1818) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:28PM (#6587)

      My Netflix service under Comcast has definitely suffered. Over the past 6 months it has degraded to buffering constantly for less than HD quality content. It used to be HD quality with zero buffering once the movie initially started. I'm not pleased with Comcast for this and a few other reasons. Their tech support and web applications are crap. I called them for help because there had been a months long inconsistency with how my bills were displayed and my next bill went up $2. WTF!!! I can't even tell if it was a 1 time charge or a new monthly charge because when the last 5 months of my payments finally showed up in my account, they had lumped them all together on this months bill. They still can't tell me WTF caused the issue to begin with.

      Comcast is garbage.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by combatserver on Tuesday February 25 2014, @02:04AM

    by combatserver (38) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @02:04AM (#6326)

    Comcast sucks.

    A few years ago we bought a set-top DVD player with Netflix access--An Instant View movie would load at full high-definition, only to be interrupted while the buffer refilled. It would do this 2-3 times before lowering the resolution, after which it would start the whole process again until it found a resolution Comcast bandwidth could handle--this often took up to 20 minutes. Some movies would simply not play without rebuffering every 5-10 minutes.

    The day after the court decision that allowed Comcast to filter traffic, the same player began ignoring HD requests and now starts ALL movies at half-resolution .

    Last night, it was still starting at half-resolution, but again, began hunting for yet another lower resolution. I can see squares floating in the sky when I watch a movie now.

    Netflix was the only reason I haven't downgraded to the only other ISP available where I live--If Netflix service doesn't improve soon (to the point I am getting to actually watch movies in HD, like I paid for), I no longer have that excuse and I will dump Comcast.

    Comcast--I refuse to be a pawn in your fucking games any longer.

    --
    I hope I can change this later...
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by zim on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:21AM

      by zim (1251) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:21AM (#6364)
      Even more fuck comcast.

      When they converted our area over to their 'digital' bullshit. They made a big show that the DTA boxes were FREE! FREE FREE FREE! Everything i have says so.

      And now a year later. Oh. Nope. $5 a month.

      And what about their sad busted DVR.. I've had a few of those. They're garbage. Not much way around it either unless you want to (try) getting cablecard AND have it work.

      And just lately. The broadcast tv fee. When it was announced they made a big show of saying existing comcast customers wouldnt be paying that until july... Lied to us yet again. That started showing up on peoples bill in january.

      I'm paying extra for local tv stations i don't want anyway. And have no way to opt out of.

      $150 a month for what... 10? 12? Halfway good channels. And shitty internet that goes down more than a 2 dollar whore.

      But really. What do i really expect since we got an ex-lobbyist for the cable industry in charge of the FCC. The only people who could potentially save us from their bullshit. Or yeah right. Our local goverments.

      TV and broadband in the united states is so fucking sad.
      • (Score: 1) by nightsky30 on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:50PM

        by nightsky30 (1818) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:50PM (#6599)

        Comcast == Beta

        We all know what that means! Except, we can't fork them. Our only option is to leave them without an alternative. They are the monopoly.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by evilviper on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:03AM

    by evilviper (1760) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:03AM (#6355) Homepage Journal

    Netflix is having all these problems because they use Cogent, the cut-rate morons of the transit world...

    Cogent has long had a problem of being just a bandwidth provider, while claiming they are a transit provider. This results in Cogent usually dumping all traffic to the nearest (already overloaded) peering point, where the peer's backbone has to carry it across the country to the end-user, rather than Cogent transferring the data over their own backbone to the peering point closest to the customer, like any tier-1 should.

    If you want your ISP to just tolerate all the bad behavior of misbehaving peers like Cogent, you'll quickly find your fees astronomical, as your ISP gets horribly taken advantage of, and ends up acting as a backbone for others.

    This has happened to Cogent hundreds of times, long before they carried Netflix streaming video:

    * http://www.pcworld.com/article/122893/article.html [pcworld.com]
    * https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/92749 [dslreports.com]
    * https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/68251 [dslreports.com]
    * https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/24809 [dslreports.com]
    * http://www.complaints.com/2008/november/1/Sprint_C uts_Service_to_Cogent_191150.htm [complaints.com]
    * http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/unbalan ced-peering-and-the-real-story-behind-the-verizon- cogent-dispute [verizon.com]
    * http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/level-3-is sues-statement-concerning-internet-peering-and-cog ent-communications-55014572.html [prnewswire.com]
    * http://www.fiercetelecom.com/story/verizon-blames- cogent-unbalanced-peering-netflix-dispute/2013-06- 20 [fiercetelecom.com]
    * https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/ 10/31/peering-dispute-between-cogent-sprint/ [datacenterknowledge.com]

    It used-to be that ISPs would cut-off Cogent entirely, and the internet would bifurcate, with each side not being able to reach the other. These days ISPs seem less willing to tolerate such massive disruption. Now, as Cogent dumps more traffic on ISPs, they're just not upgrading the peering points, so Cogent customers see congestion and slowdowns going to/from other ISPs. Netflix is just the biggest customer, the one end users will notice. Cogent and others like to spin it as a net-neutrality / conflict of interest type story to spin-up outrage, since that's cheaper than actually dealing with the issue. Some others don't understand and misrepresent the issue, while some are intentionally promulgating the myth to serve their own purposes.

    Cogent is a douche bag of the highest order, who ALWAYS claims to be the innocent party in peering disputes, while they're almost always massively in-the-wrong, behaving unconscionably, and refusing to either admit to or remedy the problem they're causing. Without in-depth evidence to the contrary on each case, I will always assume Cogent are acting like pricks, as usual, and will give all other ISPs every benefit of the doubt.

    Through all of this, Netflix has NOT been blaming ISPs like Comcast & Verizon for their streaming speeds and peering problems. They know their ISPs is at-fault, and have been working behind the scenes to remedy the problem (without admitting their own fault to their customers) so it's ridiculous for random people to make those claims:

    http://recode.net/2014/02/11/netflix-says-verizon- isnt-slowing-down-its-streams/ [recode.net]

    Netflix's suggested solution for ISPs is OpenConnect... Netflix's fledgling CDN (think: Akami). Netflix likes to proclaim that it's "free" for ISPs, but in reality, all other CDNs pay ISPs for the prime data center space, electricity, and tons of bandwidth. Netflix are the ones trying to get something for FREE. And other CDNs wouldn't be too happy about Netflix getting a sweetheart deal.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2014, @04:02AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2014, @04:02AM (#6377)

      Setting aside who pays for what and when, isn't OpenConnect potentially more mutually beneficial to the parties involved than Akamai?

      Does the decision to let Akamai use your data center space have the same potential upside in reductions to backbone usage during peak hours as letting Netflix in? It's business, both deals should be made on their own merits based on how they impact everyone involved.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Angry Jesus on Tuesday February 25 2014, @05:23AM

      by Angry Jesus (182) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @05:23AM (#6412)

      Netflix is having all these problems because they use Cogent, the cut-rate morons of the transit world...

      Right. Because this has never happened before with another backbone provider. [arstechnica.com] Comcast getting into a pissing match with the backbone provider transiting netflix traffic is unheard of. Just Cogent being Cogent...

    • (Score: 2) by dmc on Tuesday February 25 2014, @06:29AM

      by dmc (188) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @06:29AM (#6423)

      Your first link was from 2005. That's about a hundred internet years ago, so I'm not going to bother reading many of the others (maybe they are useful, I just don't have that much personal time to invest in this). But I will argue a bit with your implicit spin that this has nothing to do with net neutrality. While from what you said, I'm willing to suspect you may be generally correct about a lot of it- namely the issue being Netflix's ISP just not being very good at providing good service, the fact remains that Netflix has paid a broadband provider (Comcast) for some sort of enhanced access to their broadband customers. And neither party revealing the financial and network details of the deal publicly to said customers. Ergo that seems to be a violation of the (now post-verizon-ruling seemingly defunct and unenforceable despite FCC handwaving to the contrary) Network Neutrality rule demanding transparency of network management practices. This has (AFAICT, but again, I'm not so invested I've researched exhaustively) the effect of Comcast's customers not knowing the network management practices in enough detail to register more specific complaints about the situation than vague perhaps unfounded suspicions, or in my comment above that you critiqued, vague lack of knowledge to make a conclusion. Likewise, every other edge provider providing services to Comcast's customers is left in the dark as to what kind of service path they have available to those customers. Thus they are in murkier business waters, and that hinders their availability to get investment for their business models. Or at least, that is a Network Neutrality argument I can make off the top of my head. Do feel free to tear it down, and I'll hope to come out of the debate more educated one way or the other.

      I'll note at this time also that my local cable broadband provider (Wow Broadband) will not disclose even the price of their broadband service before you give them your address. I feel this is also a (rather simpler and lesser scale) Network Neutrality transparency violation. Feel free to critique that theory if you like as well.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by zim on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:15AM

    by zim (1251) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:15AM (#6359)
    I pay for my bandwidth. Netflix pays for theirs.

    And now comcast wants another cut.

    $80 a month for this...
    Fucking comcast. The day google or really ANYBODY ELSE comes to this city. You're so done.

    Now with this precident every single isp is going to goto the high bandwidth sites with their hands out.
    Or start throttling.

    Once again excessive greed manages to ruin everything.
    • (Score: 1) by Clev on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:59AM

      by Clev (2946) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:59AM (#6376)
      So.... this means Netflix won't count toward the bandwidth caps now, right?
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by quadrox on Tuesday February 25 2014, @05:17AM

    by quadrox (315) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @05:17AM (#6411)

    By giving in to these thugs demands Netflix is contributing to the problem instead of helping. I will cancel my Netflix subscription and let them know why.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by quadrox on Tuesday February 25 2014, @06:33AM

      by quadrox (315) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @06:33AM (#6428)

      I just cancelled my subscription, but apparently the netflix website does not provide proper contact details, you have the choice between a phone call and a live-chat.

      The live chat option worked better than expected, and the "lowly chat agent" (her words, not mine) was as surprised as I was about netflix' sudden reverals of policy and promised to send my concerns higher up in the company. I hope someone listens and finds a way back out of this mess.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2014, @08:37AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2014, @08:37AM (#6486)

      If anybody needs another reason to hate netflix, they're pushing for DRM in HTML5.

      https://www.defectivebydesign.org/netflix [defectivebydesign.org]

      • (Score: 1) by TWiTfan on Tuesday February 25 2014, @02:36PM

        by TWiTfan (2428) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @02:36PM (#6621)

        In Netflix's defense, they have no choice but to push for DRM. The studios would never license any content to them otherwise. And I'm pretty sure you're not going to pay $8/month just to watch House of Cards and Orange is the New Black episodes over and over.

        --
        If real life were like D&D, my Charisma score would be a negative number
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by r00t on Tuesday February 25 2014, @07:41PM

      by r00t (1349) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @07:41PM (#6868)

      RE: I will cancel my Netflix subscription and let them know why.

      Slow down cowboy. Consider that Netflix is on the ropes here. They are basically being extorted into paying whatever the evil trifecta Verizon/Comcast/TWC wants. You have already paid for the bandwidth you are using and said trifecta should not say HOW you use it. EULA fine print or not. It's wrong and Netflix should point out the double-dipping.

      If Netflix fails, the choices for movie streaming will look like a 300 channel Cable TV subscription. All shit. All infomercials. All at a premium price. It may be wise to at least give Netflix the $8/mo for a little while longer to see where they go with all this. They are far less douche than the evil trifecta.

      • (Score: 1) by quadrox on Tuesday February 25 2014, @11:03PM

        by quadrox (315) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @11:03PM (#6990)

        "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

        The only little bit of power I have is to vote with my wallet. I must send a clear and strong message immediately when somebody does something wrong, if I wait to long it will be too late to change anything. The same goes for Netflix.

        This battle cannot be won another day, every inch lost will be ten times harder to get back once it is established business practice. We must all draw a line in the sand and we certainly must do it now.

        I this fight, as with many other issues like DRM, you are either with "us" or you are part of the problem. There IS no middle way, and the sooner you realise that, the better.