
Netflix Agrees to Pay Comcast to End Web Traffic Jam - dctoedt
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579401071892041790
======
scelerat
And so the precedent is set. This is the direction I see things going:

For $70 a month from Comcast you can get Amazon, Google, and Facebook. For
only $10 more a month you can add Netflix and Spotify. Want Pandora? Sorry,
you'll have to switch to AT&T for that.

The broadband providers are used to this type of packaged service given their
history as cable television providers. It's how they make their money beyond
providing simple connectivity. Their future expansion and profits are linked
to their ability to create exclusivity and extract revenue based on targeted
demand.

I don't see any other way around this. Absent regulations prohibiting packet
discrimination, I'm not sure I would do any different if I were in Comcast's
shoes.

~~~
aleem
That is not going to happen. The onus is not on the consumer, it's on the
service provider. The service provider may transfer the costs onto the
consumer but Comcast won't directly charge the consumers a premium. That would
be a bad move and Comcast would lose out its customers to competitors.

~~~
erichurkman
What competitors? In many areas, they are the only broadband provider. The
next-closest providers are typically DSL.

Consumers are going to get screwed on the front & back end of this.

~~~
steveplace
run a search at broadbandnow.com, see what you get

~~~
JohnTHaller
Yeah, my building here in NYC, I can get Time Warner or DSL (Verizon or from a
reseller). That's it. Lots of us are stuck with 1 or 2 crappy options. I have
overpriced Time Warner and a Verizon hotspot as a backup because the TW cable
connection goes down about once a month. The other option is DSL which is too
slow to do work and was down a week of my 30 day trial when I checked it out
years back.

Keep in mind that this is New York City. You'll have lesser options in many
other places in the US.

~~~
gonzo
I'm in Austin, TX.

We have two FTTH providers (AT&T, Grande). Grande offers 1Gbps now, AT&T is
300Mbps now, 1Gbps this summer. Time Warner offers 300Mbps now (DOCSIS).

Google fiber is being deployed this year (1Gbps).

~~~
ploxiln
Yeah, funny world - once one decent internet provider pops up in an area
(Grande, presumably, and now the thread of Google Fiber too), all the other
classic providers seem to provide the best service they offer throughout the
country. AT&T doesn't offer that in 95% of their territory in the US (so like
99% of the US can't get it), and the same goes for Time Warner. If any area
has decent internet options, it's not because of a classic / well known
broadband ISP, it's only because of some small independent ISP that forced a
local market to be competitive.

------
jaggederest
Wow, Netflix has decided to negotiate with the terrorists? I'm pretty
disappointed.

Edit: Having read more of the non-paywalled version, I have to say I think
they're shooting themselves in the foot, even if Comcast was offering a better
price than Cogent. It sets a terrible precedent, and gives Comcast the
leverage to bump the price extortionately at the end of the deal.

~~~
lhnz
You don't understand.

This is the creation of an economic moat (a term coined by Warren Buffet.)

The gatekeeper creates a toll and the tradesman agrees to pay the toll. This
is an entry cost to new market players and therefore reduces competition. This
toll may be increased as the biggest player (Netflix) grows in size and this
benefits them, as eventually new startups have $1+ million startup costs and
nobody is willing to invest in that cost-payoff scenario.

This is a win-win negotiation for both Comcast and Netflix but a loss for
consumers. Unfortunately it's just how the game is played.

~~~
fragsworth
This is an interesting perspective but I think a bit too startup-centric.
Startup costs for a Netflix-like company are already in the tens of millions
to negotiate license deals. Netflix is probably far more concerned with Amazon
(and maybe Google) taking their business away.

~~~
lhnz
True.

But I framed it too specifically. My perspective holds true at the level of
large organisations wanting to take punts towards similarly large markets.
Signing the money off is going to become more and more difficult when the
access cost is so high, and barely anybody will want to take the reputational
cost of failure to enter the market.

------
ffk
This might not be an anti-net neutrality deal. Here are the details we know at
this point:

1\. Netflix is currently using Cogent

2\. Comcast offered them a direct connection to their network via paid-
peering.

3\. Netflix agreed and will move over.

4\. Nothing about net neutrality was mentioned in the article.

This deal is being referred to as paid-peering. Peering is a practice
performed at ISPs where two ISPs hook up infrastructure and agree to maintain
their sides without charging for bandwidth. Peering is a common practice among
the industry, and content-providers are always looking for ways to peer with
more ISPs because it drives down their overall cost of operations.

The article says nothing about net neutrality. We don't have enough
information to say whether net neutrality was harmed in this deal. We can only
speculate at this time. Hopefully we will hear more from Netflix on this.

[edit to fix list formatting]

~~~
ivanca
You don't seem to understand: This is not a technical issue; is a conceptual
one, people are not going to read the details of the deal, rather to grab the
idea and slowly believe that paying for better connection with a site/ISP is
normal.

~~~
MichaelGG
>rather to grab the idea and slowly believe that paying for better connection
with a site/ISP is normal.

Is _is_ normal. ISPs are not equal. There's a reason you pay Level(3) a lot
more than HE.

------
RyanZAG
This is actually good for Netflix and terrible for any competition. While
Netflix probably has to hand over a bit of money, they are in a much better
position to do so than any of their competitors as they're the biggest. In
effect this creates a massive entry barrier into the video streaming market.
You will now likely need to set up a massive infrastructure and pay massive
bribes to various internet providers to be able to compete. So this is
probably a smart move by Netflix by creating entry barriers that they should
be able to easily pass on to consumers if they can achieve market dominance.

~~~
toast0
This sounds like standard paid peering; there's nothing non-competitive here.

If you're a small provider, you tend to buy transit from one or a few
providers, and pay per bit in whichever direction has the most traffic.

If you're bigger, maybe you can setup peering. If you have relatively balanced
flows, and meet other qualifications, you can usually get free (settlement
free) peering. If your flows aren't balanced, then the tradition is that
whoever is sending more pays. If the networks you're establishing paid peering
with are cheaper than your transit provider (usually the case), then peering
is still a win for you, and a win for the other network.

If Netflix wants to get settlement free peering with Comcast, they need to
balance their traffic to Comcast (maybe partner with a backup service, or web
crawler)

~~~
wmf
The tradition _when backbones peer with each other_ was for traffic to be
balanced. When a content provider peers with an eyeball ISP, free peering
makes sense regardless of balance.

~~~
ajasmin
That makes a lot of sense. Not solving this earlier is a detriment to the
customers of both companies.

------
santosha
Not entirely sure why this is such a big deal. Peering agreements happen all
the time. Lots of large services peer directly with consumer ISPs because it's
cheaper and more efficient than using intermediary transit.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Comcast is not throttling or
discriminating traffic in any way (at least not publicly). This is a peering
dispute settlement.

Does this affect competitors to Netflix? Depends on how much volume they have.
If their volumes are low, they can still reliably use transit providers more
economically. As their revenue increases, they'll need their own backbone
network, but their ability to pay for it goes up too.

Is Comcast big, bad and evil? Probably. But not in this case. Comcast dealing
directly with Netflix is good for both parties. They are entitled to charge
Netflix to peer directly because most traffic is going to flow into Comcast's
network from Netflix. They also probably had a case negotiating away from
settlement-free agreements with Cogent for the same reason. Again, none of
this is out of the ordinary, ASes negotiate peering deals with each other all
the time based on the volume and direction of the traffic they exchange with
each other, and this is all fairly unregulated.

Net neutrality is irrelevant in all of this, it only matters if Comcast
actively discriminates between traffic at their end. This deal is not
connected to the ruling.

~~~
gergles
Comcast is a residential ISP. What possible traffic could there be to flow out
of their network, other than requests for other data? By that logic, everyone
has to pay to peer with Comcast because "Ha ha, we have all the customers.
Darn, it sure is a shame that our customers don't have any data to send to
you. Darn it, we really wish we could do free peering, but we just can't, aw,
darn it. [cue South Park cable company responses]"

No, what happened was Comcast discovered another place they could fuck over
the customer - by charging for peering even though it benefits their customers
to not do so, and decided to spin it into some way that makes people feel like
Comcast was somehow being injured by Netflix under the old settlement-free
peering model.

~~~
santosha
Neither Comcast nor Netflix are trying to operate a non-profit, it's a payment
dispute between two large companies who disagree over who should pay. You
could just as well argue that Netflix was letting Cogent / Comcast fight it
out instead of directly peering with ISPs which benefits customers.

~~~
the_ancient
The Biggest problem here is, I as a Comcast customer have already paid Comcast
to bring me the packets from Netflix... That is what my outrageous bill every
month is for..

They will now be DOUBLE BILLING for the same packet, a cost that WILL BE
passed along to the netflix customer.

~~~
_delirium
But what about the Comcast customers who _don 't_ use Netflix? They win from
this deal! At least, if you make the assumption that costs are passed on to
the consumer, as you seem to be making.

~~~
the_ancient
Costs will be passed along on the netflix side

Savings(if any) will not be passed along on the comcast side

Personally I do not believe there will be any real saving for comcast in the
first place, so there is nothing to pass along, it is 100% profit for them

------
itsprofitbaron
Beyond looking at the implications for Net Neutrality (since we don't really
know the implications of this deal going forward in relation to this); for
people who are wondering why this has happened, this looks like this is part
of Netflix's Open Connect Project[1] which is a single-purpose CDN network -
and is essentially a paid-peering deal.

As part of the Open Connect Project, Netflix has deployed servers which are
hundreds of terabytes in size in strategic locations all over the work and
they contain ~60-90% of the data required for that particular country.

These devices either live in the ISP (which is what Netflix wanted to happen
with Comcast) or live in an internet exchange where multiple ISPs can connect
to the Open Connect devices.

There are 3 core benefits in doing this:

\- Better Streaming due to fewer hops to the client

\- Netflix avoids rate limiting (if they're inside the ISP Network)

\- Peering is free (usually) and is essentially where two ISPs connect their
infastructure and agree to maintain their own sites without bandwidth charges.
It's common throughout the industry and content-providers are always looking
to peer with ISPs to drive down their overall costs of operations.

[1] [http://openconnect.netflix.com](http://openconnect.netflix.com)

~~~
tzakrajs
Netflix does not use AWS to move video bits, but yes it will save them money
on CDN costs.

------
higherpurpose
Are the insane? Why would they agree to this _weeks_ after the net neutrality
case, and not wait at least until they see what Congress and FCC want to do
about it?

The only other explanation is that they may actually _like_ this, because they
know it would slow down a lot of their smaller competitors coming after them.
It's even stranger when you think that customers must've blamed Comcast for
their poor Netflix experience lately, _not Netflix_.

~~~
twoodfin
How would Net Neutrality help here? Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix vs.
other content, they were refusing to build bigger pipes to Cogent.

~~~
wmf
It looks like Comcast was refusing to upgrade specifically to hurt Netflix,
which falls under the sprit of net neutrality if not the letter.

~~~
ghshephard
Net Neutrality requires that you treat all traffic the same, regardless of
source/destination - it certainly doesn't require that you create larger
connections without being paid for them.

And, let's face it - anybody who has ever used Cogent for transit (usually at
1/3 to 1/10th the cost of other providers) knew what they were getting into.

~~~
wmf
I don't think Cogent's cheapness has much to do with it. When Netflix was
using Tata, Comcast refused to upgrade their Tata links. When Netflix used
Level 3, Comcast found a way to create congestion there.

------
JohnTHaller
Netflix and other streaming services should not engage in these types of
contracts. They should instead detect slowdowns and notify customers of the
slowdown and to call their provider to fix it, resulting in increased support
costs, customer attrition, etc for the provider. Peering should remain a 50/50
split between the major peers. Just because Comcast and Verizon are sitting
there refusing to turn the ports on until you cough up $ (basically a hostage
negotiation) doesn't mean you should.

~~~
cheald
> Just because Comcast and Verizon are sitting there refusing to turn the
> ports on until you cough up $ (basically a hostage negotiation) doesn't mean
> you should.

Would you please enlighten me as to why an ISP should be required to provide
access to a resource they aren't being compensated for?

~~~
cdash
Because their customers are paying for it.

~~~
cheald
Nope. ISP customers pay for last-mile infrastructure and access to the
connection that the ISP has brokered with larger traffic carriers, whatever
that may be. You should read up on peering agreements.

~~~
JohnTHaller
And part of that payment is for the ISP's peering agreements with other
providers. Why would I pay just to connect to Verizon? I want my connection
beyond Verizon to the peer networks hosting Netflix, Facebook, YouTube, etc.
No customer would only pay for the last mile if that's all they got.

~~~
cheald
Yes, part of that payment is for access to those negotiated peers. However,
just because a customer is paying indirectly for peer access doesn't establish
an obligation on the ISP to support arbitrary uncompensated resource
consumption on the behalf of their contracted peers. It's an entirely separate
contract.

Cogent should pay Comcast market peering costs for the unreciprocated
bandwidth they send to Comcast. That's what this whole dispute is about.
Arguing that Comcast's refusal to build out and maintain significant
infrastructure to support a peering imbalance imposed on them by a peering
partner via abuse of a good-faith concession, at their own expense, is somehow
"taking hostages" is just silly. Cogent oversold.

I think that Comcast sucks as much as the next guy, but I really don't think
they're the bad guy here (as much as it pains me to say that). It looks that
way to consumers because Comcast is the only contact affected users have with
the whole industry (how many people who have been upset at crappy Netflix
quality know who Cogent is, or what a transit agreement is?), but that doesn't
mean that's actually an accurate perspective.

~~~
cdash
This is stupid, Cogent is providing Comcast customers with what they are
requesting. Now Comcast says no way, I don't give a shit what my customers are
asking for, you have to pay us as well. How is Cogent abusing Comcast by
providing Comcast's customers with data they have requested.

No, I don't think Comcast is being abused at all and its much more likely they
just don't give a shit what their customers want because they know there is
nothing the customer can do about it and so they let service degrade in order
to extort more money.

~~~
cheald
Because Cogent and Comcast have a peering agreement in which they agree to
exchange traffic that is more or less symmetric (since that means that both
partners will be spending approximately equivalent amounts on infrastructure
development and maintenance). It has been customary for consumer-bound traffic
to not count against the balance, since it was a relatively minor portion of
the overall traffic exchanged. With the advent of high-resolution consumer-
oriented video services like Netflix, that has changed - consumer traffic has
become a significant portion of overall traffic exchanged, which causes a flow
disparity between the two peering partners and places a disproportionate
burden on one.

If this were not consumer-bound data, then Cogent would likely already be
paying for the disparity. As it is, it's a good guess that Cogent has refused
to compensate Comcast for the additional load on their network build-out and
maintenance costs, instead relying on the good-faith consumer data exception
to exempt them from paying for it. Comcast's response to this was to steal
Netflix's business from Cogent, thereby alleviating the uncompensated load
that Cogent was placing on their network and improving Netflix's
deliverability.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. If you're a service provider, you're
paying _someone_ for delivery of your bytes. Netflix just cut out the
middleman here. It's not like Netflix didn't already have to pay for the bytes
they delivered - they just changed who they're paying.

------
cwisecarver
I thought Comcast had to follow the net neutrality rules until 2018 regardless
of that court decision a few weeks ago... Is this NFLX caving because nobody
is enforcing the rules Comcast agreed to? (Edited for englishy)

~~~
wmf
The net neutrality rules were written to correct/prevent the abuses that were
discovered around 2005. Since then ISPs have invented new loopholes (like
targeted non-upgrading) that technically aren't covered by the old net
neutrality rules.

------
pasbesoin
In addition to the absurd, outsized cost, I don't want to pay Comcast et al.
-- directly or indirectly -- these extorted prices, because they turn around
and spend from these enormous profit margins to further constrain and
"prioritize" my use.

The only solution, is to cut off this excess profit that has become the
lifeblood of this systematic abuse.

And where these oligopolies have essentially captured the market to the point
of excluding any and all competition: End them, legally. Break them up.
Specifically legalize and perhaps even foster municipal broadband.

There may be no ultimate, static solution. But there are definitely next
steps, and they are overdue.

------
specialp
Cogent has had peering disputes not only with consumer ISPs like Comcast, but
with nearly every other tier one provider out there. Cogent is known to
provide very cheap bandwidth but on the flip side they are also known to not
be a mutually beneficial partner for settlement free peering. If you have
cogent as a provider you should know this. Netflix knows that and thus has
offered to provide settlement to Comcast to get better peering rather than be
in the overcrowded Cogent link.

------
linuxhansl
So it begins. The end of the neutral internet.

I am already paying Comcast for access to the internet! Why does Netflix have
to pay on top it?

That said, I have Netflix and Comcast and I have never experienced any issues.

Edit: Actually I realize, this is an agreement to allow Netflix to colocate
some of their servers at Comcast hubs. So it is not actually that bad.

~~~
insaneirish
> The end of the neutral internet.

"Neutral" is a vague term that in this circumstance conveys no actual meaning.

Settlement free peering is the exception, not the rule. Almost everyone pays
for access to the Internet, whether it's buying transit or peering with
settlement.

Nothing new to see here, move along.

------
ghshephard
Unsaid among all this - Netflix could have simply paid a higher quality
transit provider (Level 3) to provide them transit, and there wouldn't have
been any problems (Level 3 maintains some headroom on their peering circuits).

The reality is that it was likely cheaper for Netflix to just pay for peering
with Comcast directly.

~~~
cdash
They have, and guess what? The same shit happened. Its almost like everywhere
they go Comcast ends up doing this, kind of like they are specifically
targeting Netflix.

~~~
ghshephard
"They have, and guess what? The same shit happened."

What are you referring to? Comcast and Netflix just started peering a few days
ago.

~~~
byrgvt
Excuse me if I'm wrong but I think the parent might be referring to a 2010
dispute between Comcast and Level 3 regarding settlement free peering (a lot
of the direct Level 3 or Comcast links seem dead now but some summary articles
I can find are [1] and [2]). From these summary articles, the dispute happened
after Level 3 agreed to become a CDN for Netflix.

One tangent that I don't know where else to ask is: why would an ISP agree to
peer with Netflix, if Netflix weren't paying them. Reading about openconnect
makes it seem that Netflix wants free peering.

My understanding of the situation is as follows. 1) Settlement free peering
agreement are equivalent to free peering agreements. 2) Companies agree to
these if they send roughly the same amount of traffic in both directions. So
I'll agree to peer with you if I want to send ~N GB of traffic through your
network and you want to send ~N GB through mine. 3) (and this is where I'm
really unsure what I'm talking about) Anyone who peers with Netflix deals with
handling traffic from Netflix to it's customers. But what traffic goes the
other way? What traffic would an ISP send through Netflix network to make the
relationship mutually beneficial?

Isn't it just the normal way of things that content producers pay ISP to send
traffic through their networks?

Thanks for any clarifications!

[1][http://www.telecompetitor.com/level-3comcast-dispute-
revives...](http://www.telecompetitor.com/level-3comcast-dispute-revives-
eyeball-vs-content-debate/) and

[2][http://www.telecompetitor.com/behind-the-level-3-comcast-
pee...](http://www.telecompetitor.com/behind-the-level-3-comcast-peering-
settlement/)

~~~
ghshephard
No ISP would agree settlement free peering with Netflix - it has always been
the case that Netflix has to pay people. They chose to go with the cheapest
provider, Cogent, and Cogent did not have the capacity to provide the services
that Netflix required. So Netflix started looking elsewhere, and presumably
the next cheapest deal they could get was by peering directly with Comcast.

Your understanding is absolutely correct - this is not a Net Neutrality issue,
but a Peering Dispute, plain and simple.

~~~
byrgvt
So if that is the case, when I read the Netflix openconnect page at [1], the
list of ISPs there do NOT engage in free peering? I was assuming they were
because of the second sentence on that page: "ISPs can do this either by free
peering...".

Also, another tangent: I'm wondering what happens when Netflix installs one of
their cache servers at an ISP data center. If 10 customers want to stream
House of Cards and that's 10GB of data, I'm assuming Netflix has to end up
paying somewhere for 10GB of upload bandwidth.

But if the Netflix cache server was in a nearby ISP data center, would Netflix
only pay for 1GB of bandwidth (to upload to their servers), and not pay for
10GB of bandwidth as the customers hit the cache server? I'm assuming that the
ISP makes some of it back by charging Netflix to place their servers locally,
but it's still cheaper then paying to stream all the bandwidth.

If an ISP were completely focused on maximizing it's profit and not on what
Netflix quality was to it's customer, does the ISP have any incentive to
install Netflix cache server?

Thanks again for clearing up these questions!

[1][https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect](https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect)

~~~
ghshephard
When Netflix installs their cache servers at ISP data centers, they purchase
transit from those data centers and pay for it at the 95th percentile like any
other data center (or CDN) customer of that ISP. Netflix pays for the traffic
they put onto the network.

The ISP has a big incentive to have Netflix increase their quality wherever
there is strong competition for Broadband Internet. The more competition, the
more incentive.

Here is an excellent article on transit:
[http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/transit-works-
costs-i...](http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/transit-works-costs-
important.html)

------
gnoway
I think what I'm seeing is that Netflix doesn't really care about neutrality
beyond its ability to enable their business. Which is basically what we as
consumers should have assumed from the start.

------
skywhopper
This is a terrible precedent to set, and if it's true, I'm very disappointed
in Netflix. Comcast is vulnerable right now since it's seeking to merge with
TWC. Now's the time to pull out the big guns and show Congress, the FTC, and
the citizens of the US why net neutrality is important. But instead of taking
advantage, they cave and even pay off Comcast in what's essentially extortion.
A disturbing vision of the future broken Internet to come.

------
vxxzy
"The gravy-train has ended." -Major ISPs

So much for net neutrality. Now ISPs have another way to make more $$. Keep
those profits higher - push smaller streaming services out.

------
angersock
Wait wait wait...so, a company that has something like 60-70% of the market in
total monopoly now has successfully ransomed another company who depends on
their services?

Motherfuckers.

~~~
briandh
Where are you getting those numbers? It would seem [1] that Comcast has about
24% broadband market share. Subtracting the 3 million or so planned divested
lines, even a post-merger Comcast would only have about 34% of the market --
which may be too high for comfort, but is nowhere near 60-70%

[1]
[http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/usbroadbandsubscr...](http://gigaom2.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/usbroadbandsubscribersq12013.jpg)

~~~
wmf
Each coverage area is a separate market, and AFAIK cable companies have 60-70%
share within their areas (mostly because cable is so much less bad than DSL,
so the market is working somewhat).

------
zeckalpha
Is there a non pay-walled version available?

This may mark the end of net neutrality.

~~~
pushrax
Here's a direct link using Google as the referrer:
[http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+En...](http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+End+Traffic+Jam&btnI)

~~~
matthuggins
This worked for me, thanks!

------
aleem
Link without paywall:
[http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees](http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees)
to+Pay+Comcast+to+End+Traffic+Jam&btnI

~~~
pushrax
For purposes of easy clicking, here's the same link without the space:
[http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+En...](http://www.google.com/#q=Netflix+Agrees+to+Pay+Comcast+to+End+Traffic+Jam&btnI)

~~~
lucb1e
Since when is it /#q= instead of /?q=? This doesn't work for people with
noscript I think.

~~~
pushrax
The ?q= doesn't cause the referrer to get set properly.

~~~
lucb1e
Oh thanks, I didn't know that!

------
rjd
Heres what I would be trying if I was netflix. Probably sure I'd have trouble
pushing it against the rest of the company but I'd try this:

1) Collect evidence of network tampering/filtering

2) Get agreement in place to pay for better service

3) Collect the rest of the evidence that network filtering was in place when
it gets lifted.

4) Simultaneously hit comcast up for breaching the neutrality agreements,
while notifying all comcast customers that comcast is forcing netflix to
charge its customers more for access.. that it might have to be along to them
to pay... but we are working on ways yo prevent it.

Try and squeeze comcast from both ends at once and public embarrass them,
while trying to keep the higher ground, looking like the peoples hero, under
dog etc...

I doubt many companies would take that risk, but that what I'd try.

~~~
jonknee
They have already done 1 and 2. The problem is #4 isn't possible because there
aren't neutrality agreements to breach. Comcast provides shit service to
Netflix and that's perfectly legal.

------
pirateking
I have been waiting 4 years to switch to Sonic Fusion, but I am too far from
the CO. I wish there was some way to take local action to help them expand to
my area. I know many people would be interested.

------
w1ntermute
I refuse to play this game - I'm back to torrenting.

~~~
zackmorris
Or better yet, let someone else do the work for you:

[http://watch32.com](http://watch32.com)

I'm curious to see how this plays out because the endgame for the internet is
free-fast-failsafe. I wonder how long it will take for companies to litigate
themselves into irrelevance. I actually feel kind of bad for netflix in this
case, because when you make a deal with the devil, he always wins, and I hate
to see them go someday :-(

~~~
w1ntermute
> Or better yet, let someone else do the work for you:

> [http://watch32.com](http://watch32.com)

Unfortunately, this (and most other similar) sites use Flash, something I'm
trying to avoid[0]. They also tend to have only low-quality, grainy video (not
that Netflix is much better even when buffering isn't an issue).

There is also the issue of these sites/videos coming and going. If they host
the files on 3rd party platforms (like this site is doing), then once the site
is popular those videos quickly get taken down. Then you're stuck clicking
through trying to find that one site (if there's even one left) that still
hasn't taken down the video. OTOH, if the files are self-hosted, then when the
site becomes popular, it can no longer support the bandwidth costs, and goes
under.

Torrent sites, however, have lasted for years. I've been using the same
private torrent site for nearly a decade. It's reliable and fast, and it has a
wide selection of content, both old and new. And I never have to deal with
Flash.

0:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7287151](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7287151)

------
willvarfar
Reminds me of the classic article [http://boingboing.net/2007/09/22/how-a-
nonneutral-isp.html](http://boingboing.net/2007/09/22/how-a-nonneutral-
isp.html) with a classic "infographic"
[http://craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg](http://craphound.com/images/netneutralpricing.jpg)

------
otterley
This deal doesn't seem as bad as many make it out to be. The agreement appears
to consist of a an interconnection arrangement between Comcast's backbone and
Netflix's streaming POPs.

Prior to the agreement, the traffic was routed through Cogent, and Comcast
didn't want to increase the interconnection bandwidth with Cogent.

I don't see this as a blow to Net Neutrality, assuming the deal is as
described.

------
Ihmahr
For everyone in Europe:

Monday evening there will be a vote on net neutrality. CONTACT YOUR
REPRESENTATIVE

[http://www.savetheinternet.eu/](http://www.savetheinternet.eu/)

(dutch) [https://www.bof.nl/2014/02/21/maandag-d-day-voor-
netneutrali...](https://www.bof.nl/2014/02/21/maandag-d-day-voor-
netneutraliteit/)

Explain your concerns to them.

------
jusben1369
Hard to underestimate the ramifications of an agreement like this. Many would
say this is the market acting in the way it should.

~~~
karmajunkie
I'd say my internet provider is fucking me over in failing to provide me with
reliable connectivity I'm paying for. But that's just me.

~~~
badman_ting
Yeah, that sounds like the market I'm familiar with.

------
valas
Comcast Profit Jumps 28.6% on Growth of Broadband:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/business/media/comcast-
pro...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/business/media/comcast-profit-
jumps-26-on-growth-of-broadband.html?_r=0)

------
Corrado
Another, non-paywalled, link is here:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-
and...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix-
reach-a-streaming-agreement.html)

------
jasonkostempski
Glad I don't have to deal with Comcast but I'm canceling Netflix if this is
true.

------
gtirloni
One way to make this ugly real fast is for content providers like
Netflix/Amazon to completely block subscribers from ISPs that apply QoS to
negatively impact them.

Say something like "we can't provide a great experience so we think you should
have no experience at all because it wouldn't be fair with us and with you. we
are sorry." and make it explicit that it's because of the ISP they are using.

The ISP think they are selling gold when they are more likely selling a
commodity. Sure, at some locations it's indeed like gold, but how much of that
is artificially enforced?

These pipes aren't worth much if there is no content flowing through them.

~~~
MichaelGG
So your expectation is that if Netflix _intentionally prevents_ users from
using their service because they don't like the user's choice of ISP, that
will turn out well for Netflix?

~~~
gtirloni
If you want to ignore all the details in this discussion, how much power each
company has and how much they're willing to leverage it.. sure, go ahead.

The whole net neutrality discussion is a power play between content providers
and fiber owners, nothing else. The discussion about freedom and competition
is awesome (and right!), but at the end it's these two huge groups fighting
each other while we are screaming "think of the children!".

What Netflix would be losing if a subset of their customers on provider X is
already getting crappy service and it can't do anything about that? At some
point they will have to decide what to do about all those complaints and
refund requests.

~~~
MichaelGG
What would Netflix be losing? A lot of customers? And handing all of them over
to Comcast's on-demand service. It'd be a massive win for Comcast.

There's no net neutrality issue in this discussion at all. Comcast is simply
declining to upgrade its peering with Cogent. How is that net neutrality? If
Netflix comes to me tomorrow and decides to buy all their transit through me,
is Comcast somehow required to give me lots of free peering?

Netflix might be the majority(?) of Cogent's traffic, and Comcast might decide
that it's not worth upgrading the connections for them. But as long as Comcast
isn't discriminating traffic on their end (via some traffic shaping mechanism,
I'd guess), then it's simply a matter of "Comcast thinks Cogent has enough
connectivity, and sees no reason for them to upgrade the connections while
getting nothing in return".

Their customers may disagree, but it up to them to not buy the service.
(Perhaps the real problem here is lack of competition in the ISP market?)

~~~
gtirloni
Taking only this episode into account, you're absolutely right.

I was commenting on net neutrality issues and that was obviously not related
here.

------
danielrhodes
For those of you not famaliar with how peering agreements work, usually
somebody will get one of the backbone providers to give them bandwidth in
exchange for connecting the backbone provider to other peers. It's ideal when
there is an equal exchange here and no money is involved. Netflix wants
something different: they want to peer directly with Comcast/TWC/Verizon but
not provide any network in exchange. For such an arrangement, it is fair that
a network would charge them for this access.

------
Sweeet
You guys need to understand that the slow streaming that netflix had problems
with is actually netflix fault. They choose to use the cheapest peer
possible(cogent). So them paying comcast to be a direct peer makes complete
sense as comcast will not be sending 1/1000th of the traffic it is recieving
on these peering connections.

This has nothing to do with you having to pay more to stream other services.
It has to do with netflix finally deciding to stop placing blame and further
their own product.

------
nej
I think Netflix should've just announced to it's customers that Comcast was
throttling their network speeds before doing this. It is the same way that
current companies in the US ask you to write to your legislatures about unfair
policy changes, the most recent one I can think of in California is the
public/private ban they're trying to pass on electronic cigarettes which I
believe is still going on.

------
pcurve
Given Netflix and Youtube account for rougly 50% of peak time traffic, I
wonder if Google will also follow suit.

I'm all for net neutrality, but I think Netflix should've been paying some
usage fee into a communal fund that is off-limit to ISPs, but can be used to
improve broadband quality for everyone.

~~~
danielrhodes
Google owns a lot of backbone so they can do a peering agreement with
Comcast/Level 3 which would be mutually beneficial. Netflix has nothing to
offer in terms of peering, so their attempt at getting similar terms is just a
negotiating tactic.

------
zavi
Paid peering is frowned upon, but it happens all the time. This is not a
threat to net neutrality.

------
jason_slack
I talked to a Comcast Loyalty Agent 2 days ago about my troubles keeping
Netflix going on my devices and was told that Comcast has "superior" Netflix
performance and if I am having any trouble it certainly isn't Comcast.

------
ivanca
We need to do something guys. Probably this falls under some monopoly law or
practice against free market because it hurts way too much all the current
(and future) Netflix competition.

------
zapman449
What I don't understand is why Comcast refused to put NetFlix's CDN gear into
their network/DC setup. That would solve the problem...

~~~
Sweeet
How would you feel about someone putting their equipment on your private
network? What if the equipment they install is low quality? who gets the
blame? Who is in charge of QOS?

It is not as simple as you think

------
mpg33
Will the telecommunications industry ever become competitive? The barrier of
entry seems just too high with the amount of infrastructure it takes.

------
wnevets
Only america can you charge twice for the same product

~~~
MichaelGG
I've got a site. It has large files. Is Comcast required to provide free
peering for me? Where do I sign up for my 10GbE port (my site's small so 10G
is enough)?

Oh wait, I buy from a friend who runs an ISP. Turns out, he only has a single
10G connection for all his customers. Can he call Comcast for a free peering
arrangement now?

That's not how things work.

------
amirmansour
This is anti-competitive. It is clearly unconstitutional. I hope the FCC still
has a chance to compensate for their shortcomings.

------
cenhyperion
Net neutrality is dead. The FCC has failed us.

------
shmerl
That was their whole point, isn't it? To extort a toll for going over the
bridge. A a classic trolling method.

------
TranceMan
There is another way: [http://www.open-ix.org/](http://www.open-ix.org/)

------
kokey
While many make reference to the mythical creature Net Neutrality, I think at
best this will be mostly a way for Comcast to enjoy some time for extra
revenue and perhaps a chance to develop a closer partnership with a company
like Netflix. They could use the extra revenue to improve their network and
the relationship to give them a fighting chance when local access monopolies
are broken through new access options.

~~~
wj
They could use the money to improve their network...but likely won't.

I recall the federal government providing billions to the cable companies in
the 90s for high speed broadband that never materialized.

------
wudf
"Comcast is getting paid by Netflix? I want to be paid by Netflix too!" -every
other ISP

------
cordite
I want to see Comcast try to throttle Google, Facebook, et al. and see how it
ends up in court.

------
callesgg
The weirdest shit is that people are okay with it, at least enough to not do
anything about it.

------
clubhi
I just cancelled my netflix subscription. I hope you do the same. Let them
know why.

~~~
massysett
I did, about a week ago, due to poor picture quality and a library barely
better than Amazon Prime, which I pay for anyway for the shipping. Had they
made this Comcast deal a few weeks ago I probably would have kept them if the
picture quality were better, but now that I've cancelled I won't bother to
sign up again to see if it improves.

I was surprised that when I cancelled I didn't even get a single form asking
why.

Netflix is $8 a month for all you can stream, so I suppose I can't expect any
more than a poor library of B movies and old TV shows.

It's not up to me how Netflix and Comcast sort out their business disputes.
Netflix was not delivering service that was worth their measly $8 a month.

------
piyush_soni
Any link where we don't have to login after reading the first three lines?

~~~
SilverSurfer972
I am getting tired of those news websites requiring you to register and login
to read their content

------
brown9-2
Well now every other ISP is considering doing what Comcast just did.

------
gcb0
this. is. awesome!

hollywood pressures comcast.

comcast shakedown netflix.

netflix offers money to comcast, comcast and hollywood is pleased.

so far it sucks... but then:

netflix pass that as tax to user.

users flee from comcast.

new providers appears.

hollywood cant shake them down.

for the first time, ISP in america have a truly competitive market.

the end.

------
RRRA
Haven't they shot themselves (and everyone else!) in the foot?

------
nutjob123
I'm going to start my own ISP. Anyone want to invest?

~~~
iLoch
I'm sold, nutjob123.

------
beauzero
They just killed the internet.

------
azinman2
NOOOO! They took you hostage netflix and you gave in! Only bad will come from
this...

------
infocollector
I guess they had to pick between Lawyers vs Comcast.

------
hoggle
Did they just break the internet?

------
ck2
Oh this doesn't bode well.

------
ulfw
Goodbye Net Neutrality :(

------
runn1ng
Capitalism wins again!

------
andyl
Wow. Net neutrality is dead. Here comes Google fiber (with it's own selective
routing...)

I'm thinking of switching to Sonic.net - they seem to respect Net neutrality.
Does anyone have Sonic.net experience pro or con ??

------
swasheck
Hooray for the free and open market!! It's not extortion, it's capitalistic
innovation!!

