

bean

@verizon.net 1 recommendation bean Anon contradictory That seems to be contradictory in terms of NN and is still morally wrong. Still the equivelent of stealing. So who eats the cost of this free netflix if bandwidth is so called limited.

Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06 Wilsdom Member Re: contradictory The ISPs were stealing, Netflix is just making a deal to protect its customers



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net 1 recommendation KennyWest Anon Re: contradictory Full BS. Netflix knows what it's doing and needs to be called out on it more than just on this blog. The media needs to slam Netflix to the wall and this shows that there is no issue with content and the way it was delivered. Just that Netflix wanted their content delivered for FREE here so they could pay another ISP in another country to avoid the caps. This is total BS and Netflix should be smacked for it.



norules

@bhntampa.com 1 recommendation norules Anon Re: contradictory Rules don't apply to Netflix... only their competitors. That is REAL market power... live with it.

OldCableGuy (banned)

join:2014-12-19 OldCableGuy (banned) Member Re: contradictory This is the future of net neutrality. It's all about protecting the big dogs, at the cost of the little dogs. All the kids who thought they were "protecting the internet" are in for a VERY RUDE SURPRISE.

your moderator at work hidden : Off topic

b10010011

Whats a Posting tag?

join:2004-09-07

Bellingham, WA b10010011 to bean

Member to bean

Re: contradictory Obviously Netflix is paying iiNet or iiNwt is willing to eat the "cost".



But really the bandwidth is free. Once the initial investment of putting the system in place is repaid there is left is operation, maintenance, and expanding capacity to meet customer needs.



You can not really apply Econ-101 supply and demand to data. It does not cost say iiNet or Comcast any more money to give every customer 100Mb service then is does to give them 10Mb service. Nor does it cost more for a customer to download 100GB/month or 500GB/month.



It's not like there is a limited supply of bits and ISP's have to buy and resell them to the users.

davidhoffman

Premium Member

join:2009-11-19

Warner Robins, GA davidhoffman Premium Member Re: contradictory There is a limit to the supply of bits depending on the backbone the ISP is using. If an FTTH system is connected by a 100 Gbps line, then however many bits can be transferred by that connection in a certain amount of time is the limit. As far as administrative costs go it is far easier to take a GPON line with a 100 port splitter and serve each subscriber with 10 Mbps symmetrical than it is to serve each subscriber a 100 Mbps connection. With our 100 Gbps backbone we can predictably serve 10,000 subscribers at 10 Mbps with few worries. Of course cost per subscriber will be fairly high. We can then oversubscribe by a factor of 10 to reduce per subscriber charges, but we risk having some network congestion.



batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member Really? So Netflix is not on our side?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: Really? You can't say that based on the fact they are doing business in a different country and have to abide by the rules, no matter how stupid, that the government there allows ISPs to operate under.



They could out of protest simply not go in business there, but if every global company made that choice then few countries would have companies providing services there. Which would end with them easing up the rules, but that can also be pursued while doing business there. Much like the whole Comcast extortion thing.

AVonGauss

Premium Member

join:2007-11-01

Boynton Beach, FL AVonGauss Premium Member Re: Really? I don't believe Australia has a requirement that content distributors enter in to an agreement with service provider(s) to pay for customer's usage charges. It was a choice by NetFlix to enter in to such an arrangement, they could have provided services to Australian customers without entering in to such an arrangement.



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11

Cherry Hill, NJ ·Verizon FiOS

(Software) pfSense

Asus RT-AC68

Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 Member Re: Really? Yes they could, but with the low caps shown in this graphic and a market with caps that are accepted and their is stay, their isn't much traction for Netflix to start a fight. They want to do business there plain and simple, this may be the only way to attract customers if they found that users were too wary of their caps to use netflix on a large scale.



It's a company, it's goal is to make money

sometimes if you can't beat them you have to join them.



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net KennyWest Anon Re: Really? They could have went and stated that the caps were unfair, etc. Instead they decided to pay to avoid them. The same as Google is doing in other countries. Double speak from a company- that asks for protections in one country does what it's against in another. Sounds like any other business huh?



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11

Cherry Hill, NJ ·Verizon FiOS

(Software) pfSense

Asus RT-AC68

Asus RT-AC66

MovieLover76 Member Re: Really?

they are a business, not internet activists lol

they do what works for them on a market by market basis.



I'm sure they prefer net neutrality and uncapped connections because it's cheaper for them to provide service, but that's all it is a preference.

If you think it's about anything other than the bottom line, your kidding yourself Yea, it does sounds like any other business, that's my pointthey are a business, not internet activists lolthey do what works for them on a market by market basis.I'm sure they prefer net neutrality and uncapped connections because it's cheaper for them to provide service, but that's all it is a preference.If you think it's about anything other than the bottom line, your kidding yourself



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net KennyWest Anon Re: Really? I don't besides they want to avoid true and far peering agreements.



battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 1 recommendation battleop to Skippy25

Member to Skippy25

Netflix does not give a rats ass about being on anyone's side but their own. Their #1 motive is to look out of Netflix and it's profits. Caring about the sate of the internet for you is a far distant #2.



ooglek

join:2004-11-17

Falls Church, VA ooglek Member Re: Really? Actually, in this case, Netflix cares about getting people in Australia to watch Netflix by reducing data plan anxiety. In the US we can consume all the data with speed being our limit. In AU they get 4GB, kind of like Verizon/AT&T Cellular Data Plans. If Netflix paid Verizon/AT&T to have Netflix data not count against my data plan, I would be more likely to watch Netflix via cellular.



As it stand now, I have to manage my cellular data each month and I would hesitate to watch a movie via cellular because it wouldn't be worth that extra $15 for 1GB of data if I went over.



The ISP isn't slowing Netflix data down and telling Netflix to pay them -- Network Neutrality should solve this issue. Netflix is having to change the game there because they bill home internet connections differently.



battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop Member Re: Really? No, they just care about getting people to subscribe to Neflix. They have no in interest in bandwidth philanthropist. They just want Australian's dollars and if they have to be hypocrites in the process they don't care.



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net 1 recommendation KennyWest to Skippy25

Anon to Skippy25

They could do the same here but went to the government crying wolf. Well they can't there in Aussie since the gov't owns the national Telco.



And Comcast extortion was an issue with peering itself, not with any caps or slow downs. Shows Netflix is full of BS and they and the public knows it. Except them and those who believe them and Google.



BTW- we peer directly with Cogent and L3 and none of our customers have ever had an issue with Netflix nor YouTube.



Zenit

The system is the solution

Premium Member

join:2012-05-07

Purcellville, VA Zenit Premium Member Re: Really? The Australian government only owns 10% of Telstra shares currently...how is that ownership?

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03 InvalidError Member Re: Really? A large chunk of Telstra got forked over to NBN which is government-operated. NBN is probably what Kenny was referring to.



batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member Isn't their network "unbundled" and open to any ISP? Who is imposing the caps?

ohreally

join:2014-11-21 ohreally Member Re: Really? I believe it's a combination of high wholesale costs (when using Telstra) and limited and expensive international connectivity, hence deals like these - Netflix is presumably hosting their content servers within the ISP rather than the traffic having to go to another country. It's not new, the ISPs mirror lots of content and don't cap access to those mirrors.



It's less about gouging Netflix and more about providing incentives for users to use content that is hosted locally as it's cheaper to serve

davidhoffman

Premium Member

join:2009-11-19

Warner Robins, GA davidhoffman to batterup

Premium Member to batterup

I think the caps relate more to the limits and costs for usage of the undersea cables that Australia is presently connecting to the rest of the world with. An upgrade and addition to those cables might control cost increases for bytes transferred overseas.



batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member Re: Really? said by davidhoffman: I think the caps relate more to the limits and costs for usage of the undersea cables that Australia is presently connecting to the rest of the world with. An upgrade and addition to those cables might control cost increases for bytes transferred overseas. Bandwidth costs nothing, I read it here thousands or times.

amungus

Premium Member

join:2004-11-26

America amungus Premium Member principles? Ha. Why am I not surprised. Principles. Lol. I think that translates to "money."



This is worse than the days of AOL's "channels," their "browser," and their "instant messenger" (which was heavily monitored).



Killa200

Premium Member

join:2005-12-02

TN Killa200 Premium Member Nost surprising in the least Netflix is just like any other for profit company. Slander and scream to get your way here, do whatever you can to get your way there. They are just playing the market they are in however needed to get what they want, whether is is using customers, prices, peering, or debate in laws as the pawns to do so.

quisp65

join:2003-05-03

San Diego, CA ·webpass.net

·Charter

1 recommendation quisp65 Member Netflix was just using the public as a negotiation tool Netflix was just using the public as a negotiation tool and embarrass everyone's favorite wicked stepmother, their ISP. Luckily for them there were enough people that thought double billing was relevant and didn't realize that all data that is requested is desired and those owners still have to pony up so the rest of the internet is not subsidizing them. The stories are starting to come out now that Netflix was given some pretty good deals on back end connections.



toobs

join:2014-05-01

Fountain Valley, CA toobs Member Re: Netflix was just using the public as a negotiation tool I don't understand why is bandwidth is do limited over there. Do they use the Internet less?

davidhoffman

Premium Member

join:2009-11-19

Warner Robins, GA davidhoffman Premium Member Re: Netflix was just using the public as a negotiation tool Overseas data transfer costs might be one reason to have caps.



battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 battleop to quisp65

Member to quisp65

Exactly!



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net -4 recommendations KennyWest to quisp65

Anon to quisp65

And this shows why the courts need to strike down anything the FCC has for the Internet. There is nothing wrong with it and Netflix has shown that it is in favor of a Tier 1 and Tier 2 Internet. Google has shown it too in other countries. So if they're in favor of it and support it- Yes then we can have it here and make them pay just as they do else where.

AVonGauss

Premium Member

join:2007-11-01

Boynton Beach, FL AVonGauss Premium Member Mixed Feelings I have mixed feelings about this issue, I'm not fond of "caps" or rather cellular style metered billing for wireline service. I do concede however in the cellular market it is probably a necessary evil as there are very finite resources available to all subscribers.



Just random thoughts...



a) Should an ISP be able to exempt themselves through policy or intangible asset transfer from any metered billing policies?



Absolutely not. There is no way to separate the service provider from the content distributor. Even with the best of intentions, it gives the service provider a tremendous advantage over any other third party content distributor that no amount of resource could overcome.



b) Should a third party content distributor (i.e. NetFlix) be able to pay to a cellular service provider (i.e. Verizon) a fee to offset normally occurring fees that would have been billed to the customer?



I don't like it, but I can't say its a neutrality violation as the service provider is simply receiving payment from a third party rather than their customer. That said, this arrangement would have to be readily available to any other party with fair market pricing.



c) Should a third party content distributor (i.e. NetFlix) be able to pay a wireline service provider (i.e. Comcast) a fee to offset normally occurring fees that would have been billed to the customer?



I like this scenario less than the cellular service provider, but I again cannot say this is a neutrality violation if the arrangement is available to any other third party at fair market pricing.



d) Does this give content distributors (i.e. NetFlix) a greater advantage than service providers who also want to be content distributors?



Perhaps, though I think the advantage is negligible as the service provider is the one with the most direct relationship with the consumer and is entirely in control of how usage pricing is structured



e) This could almost be called the "video tax" as any usage based pricing advantages are going to be of limited value as most services do not use an amount of data that will be easily recognizable by the customer. Meaning, Facebook usage is not going to make or break a cellular plan - however, for video streaming services it will be very noticeable. A few other companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Steam will be noticeable to the customer in amount of usage, but it will still always be the extreme minority of cases.

neelc0

join:2014-03-31

Somers, NY neelc0 Member Why Netflix is For anyone who is wondering why Netflix is getting exemptions from data caps on Australian ISPs when they support "net neutrality" in the US, I think the reasons are:

•Internet transit in Australia is expensive but cheap in the US

•Expensive IP transit means ISPs have no option but to implement data caps and cut deals for data cap exemptions

•It's more economical for Netflix to pay for peering and data cap exemptions in Australia because of costly Australian IP transit

•Paid peering and data cap exemptions aren't economical in the US because IP transit is cheap in America, and as a result, real net neutrality is more economical

masterbinky

join:2011-01-06

Carlsbad, NM 1 recommendation masterbinky Member Different but the same Australia has a bit of a different issue with the internet. From what I understood though, the ISPs there have caps but at the same time have a whitelist of sites and services that don't count towards that cap. The driving factor for the cap was the limitation in Australia's expensive international internet connections, so the whitelist was essentially a 'hosted in Australia' stamp of approval.



If it is actually this way, then there are significant differences in the data caps in the US and the data caps in Australia.



MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11

Cherry Hill, NJ MovieLover76 Member Re: Different but the same That makes sense given how isolated they are geographically



Chronium

@teksavvy.com Chronium Anon this isn't scanalous Oh common have you already forgotten that Netflix has deals with Verizon and Comcast just so there customers don't get throttled. Netflix making deals with ISP's isn't anything new or surprising.

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16

Tampa, FL brianiscool Member lol The country has completely different laws. Also the internet is twice as expensive.



KennyWest

@sbcglobal.net -2 recommendations KennyWest Anon Re: lol It's call BS and people know it but refuse to say anything different because we gotta protect the Internet at home from the same companies that are paying and supporting a Tier 2 and Tier 3 Internet- aka the content providers.

NoHereNoMo

join:2012-12-06 NoHereNoMo Member They're down under. Everything is upside down and backwards. (They don't actually drink Foster's in Australia, mate.)



Flyonthewall

@teksavvy.com Flyonthewall Anon When you swim in someone elses pool You have to follow the rules. Once your swimming then you can try to argue how it should be.

red1854

join:2004-04-11

Salt Lake City, UT red1854 Member No real drama using Netflix in AU I'm very pleased with Netflix streaming in Australia, there few to no problems using a VPN with our ISP bandwidth limits. I probably will NOT switch to using AU Netflix when its available.



My Australia ISP (no phone) ADSL2+ during peak time offers these services, which is very common here.

$29.99/mo 25GB down, up not counted

$39.99/mo 75GB down, up not counted

$49.99/mo 250GB down, up not counted

$59.99/mo unlimited

Speeds are the same regardless of package and I am currently getting 4 Mib/s down less than 1 up. My current plan is the unlimited but I'll be switching to the 75GB/month to save money as I don't require all the bandwidth.



When I left the US I had Comcast $49.99 with 250GB cap with down speeds around 4-7 Mib/s. Roughly identical price and usage caps.



Collectively we watch Netflix for 2-4 hours per day on a US purchased Roku going though a tunnel to my US VPS web server and don't ever see more than 35 GB/month usage, for everything.



Now I am using a Linux traffic control (tc) TBF rule to limit the Netflix down traffic to 0.9 Mib/s which gives a picture equivalent to NTSC television. We're not that particular about the picture quality, I realize other people are but if its cartoons for your child what's the diff really. If we desire to watch one movie a week in higher quality I can remove the TBF for 2 hours and it doesn't make a big dent in my monthly quota.



So that's how we roll, YMMV.