view:

topics flat nest page: 1 · 2 · next

StBrandon

@charter.com StBrandon Anon why stop there? Why not have content companies like Netflix build their own networks to help out? /sarcasm



If I'm not mistaken don't companies like Netflix, MSFT, Google, Apple, Intel have tremendous amounts of infrastructure built to satisfy their needs? So they are already paying for a boatload of bandwidth.



I bet all this nonsense would stop if a particular ISP had exclusivity to Netflix content though. Suddenly there's no congestion issues just like 3G video streaming was allowed once ATT imposed small caps.

delusion ftl

@tmodns.net delusion ftl Anon Re: why stop there? I think the GSM group needs to hit up vzw, sprint, verizon land lines, qwest, fronteir and all other phone providers to build out their networks. Think of how many flipping phone calls come to and from non gsm providers. Talk about a free ride. If someone on AT&T wants to call someone on verizon, verizon should help pay for that poor AT&T person to get service. I mean it only makes sense right? The only alternative is for AT&T to start throttling calls made outside of their network cause it's way too expensive to use the money you receive from your subscribers to meet their bandwidth needs. :-/

batterup

I Can Not Tell A Lie.

Premium Member

join:2003-02-06

Netcong, NJ batterup Premium Member Re: why stop there? said by delusion ftl : If someone on AT&T wants to call someone on verizon, verizon should help pay for that poor AT&T person to get service.

Don't carriers have that in place? Mobile to mobile is free within the same carrier. Depending on plan minuets cost more during prime business time. Why is metered billing OK with wireless but not wired. As for date caps are the rule not the exception.

cdru

Go Colts

MVM

join:2003-05-14

Fort Wayne, IN cdru to StBrandon

MVM to StBrandon

said by StBrandon : If I'm not mistaken don't companies like Netflix, MSFT, Google, Apple, Intel have tremendous amounts of infrastructure built to satisfy their needs? So they are already paying for a boatload of bandwidth. network infrastructure. They all have data centers, processing capacity, CDN, etc but I don't believe they own the actual backbones...they rely on other backbones for connectivity. For instance, Netflix utilizes Level3 for their content distribution. Aside from Google, I don't think the others have extensiveinfrastructure. They all have data centers, processing capacity, CDN, etc but I don't believe they own the actual backbones...they rely on other backbones for connectivity. For instance, Netflix utilizes Level3 for their content distribution. Sammer

join:2005-12-22

Canonsburg, PA Sammer Member Re: why stop there? said by cdru: Aside from Google, I don't think the others have extensive network infrastructure.

Google didn't either until AT&T started this nonsense. If the ISPs also upset Apple and Microsoft it will be at the ISPs own peril. Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd to StBrandon

Premium Member to StBrandon

Content providers already pay their bills.



the ISPs need to remember that Broadband would not exist without content driving people to want it.

CRF

@207.236.147.x CRF Anon winning Instead of letting Sprint do it, Netflix should take a look at purchasing T-Mobile. Then bundle in Netflix access with an uncapped data plan (but taking care to not restrict access to T-Mobile customers only).

FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ 1 edit 1 recommendation FFH5 Premium Member Many content providers not interested in efficiency quote: Fortunately Bernabe also notes that carriers and application developers need to work together to design more efficient applications that make the best use of network resources. Unfortunately, there is practically no financial interest by content providers to be network efficient providers. And if network neutrality is backed by regulation and is taken to the extremes many wish, they never will be interested in being efficient. Unfortunately, there is practically no financial interest by content providers to be network efficient providers. And if network neutrality is backed by regulation and is taken to the extremes many wish, they never will be interested in being efficient.

canesfan2001

join:2003-02-04

Hialeah, FL 2 recommendations canesfan2001 Member Re: Many content providers not interested in efficiency What do you mean no interest:



1) Low bandwidth video means low storage video...save on storage costs.



2) Despite what the Telco/Cable operators would have you think, Netflix pays for the bandwidth on their end...save on bandwidth costs.



3) Customers will in some way pay the cost of receiving the bandwidth, the less Netflix sends them, the less it costs the customer in the long run... customer incentive.



Is it that people here are shills for whatever the telcos tell them, or is there some alternate universe where I can host gigantic video streaming data centers free of charge? clickie8

join:2005-05-22

Monroe, MI clickie8 to FFH5

Member to FFH5

Your point is salient, but it also includes one fundamental flaw in the way network operators view their network. They continue to oversubscribe their capacity.



If Netflix pays for n gigabits of continuous bandwidth, if the networks are struggling to provide that service, how is it the fault of Netflix? A contract was signed, the checks cashed and now suddenly there's a problem with delivery of contracted service?



On the other end of the equation, if the home subscriber is quoted a 10 megabit connection to the internet, the only reason that carriers want more money is because they've oversubscribed the service and quote the product based upon average-case use with models that are *always* out of date. Again, is this the fault of Netflix or the subscriber? In any other business, failure to adequately quote and provide service is the fault of the service provider, and those failings can have severe penalties.



I realize that this pricing is horribly complex when you factor in peering and cross-connects. But it doesn't change the premise; if the networks can't provide the level of service, the content provider isn't to blame because they want to actually use the level of service for which they pay, and neither is the end user who also subscribes for a certain level of service. Complaining that "they're using our pipes" is ridiculous; of course they are, that's what you want and if you can't make money at it, then your business model is wrong.



Network providers who want to upgrade can continue to do so exactly as they have in the past; devote profits to capital expansion, sell bonds or obtain loans for expansion and when it is all complete, sell the service at a level that returns a profit. If the sales people can't do that, then fire the sales people and find some who can. This concept that business expansion should be risk free is insulting when the other side of these people's mouths are flapping about "free market". And that's exactly what they want. openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Many content providers not interested in efficiency said by clickie8: A contract was signed, the checks cashed and now suddenly there's a problem with delivery of contracted service? Does Netflix have agreements with wireless providers? Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: Many content providers not interested in efficiency Who cares, as they don't need agreements. They simply make content available just like this website. Does DSLREPORTS have an agreement with all ISP's in the world so that every potential customer can come here? Or is this website enjoying a "free ride" on the backs of Sprint, AT&T, and Comcast?



The fact that their content is larger and in more demand is irrelevant in every way. Are we going to then start dicing and slicing up the internet by how many bytes a content provider offers? openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 Premium Member Re: Many content providers not interested in efficiency You missed the point of what my response was directed at. clickie8 suggested that this potential request/demand is in violation of an existing contract. I simply asked if Netflix has existing agreements with some of these wireless service providers. delltechkid

join:2004-11-09

Hermitage, TN delltechkid Member Re: Many content providers not interested in efficiency I dont think that was his point. His point is that content providers pay for their bandwidth and end users pay for their bandwidth. The ISPs in both cases have received payment for service and now complain that they cannot provide it without subsidy from outside. Kamus

join:2011-01-27

El Paso, TX Kamus to clickie8

Member to clickie8

I agree, the point is, very soon ISP's are going to have to move from "best effort" bandwidth to guaranteed bandwidth.



It's not rocket science either, this is very doable this time and age.

FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Re: Many content providers not interested in efficiency said by Kamus: very soon ISP's are going to have to move from "best effort" bandwidth to guaranteed bandwidth.

They can do that, but it will cost a lot more.

HappyAnarchy

@iauq.com HappyAnarchy to FFH5

Anon to FFH5

Similarly, if the cap and overages plans they have suggested goes through, they will have incentives to keep the network artificially scarce and cash in on overages.



Normally, the marketplace would solve that problem but for many reasons the market is not up to the task. Things ranging from each company suddenly deciding to do the same things, with very nebulous reasons to sweetheart deals with the government for access to lines and right of ways, to the large cost of creating a network from scratch. cahiatt

Premium Member

join:2001-03-21

Smyrna, GA cahiatt Premium Member Wow So the next big thing will be states asking the car companies to fund road maintenance and upgrades. Makes sense with the Telecom request since we are using a vehicle they built on those roads. qworster

join:2001-11-25

Bryn Mawr, PA ·Verizon FiOS

qworster Member I pay for MY INTERNET! First off, I pay sixty dollars a month for Internet-and as long as I stay under the 250 gB cap that Comcast puts on me and don't break any laws, what business does anyone have to do with what I DO with that bandwidth, especially Comcast?



Second, If I sign up with a wireless provider who promises me so much speed and so much bandwidth-then what right do they have to tell me what I can or can't DO with that bandwidth?

ArrayList

DevOps

Premium Member

join:2005-03-19

Mullica Hill, NJ ArrayList Premium Member Re: I pay for MY INTERNET! read the Terms of service. unfortunately you don't pay for internet, you pay for access to comcasts network.read the Terms of service. openbox9

Premium Member

join:2004-01-26

71144 openbox9 to qworster

Premium Member to qworster

As long as you abide by Comcast AUP/ToS and continue paying your monthly bill, I doubt you'll receive any grief from Comcast.



Anyway, this article is about mobile wireless provider potentially seeking additional fees from content companies like Netflix.

Puggie

@wideopenwest.com Puggie to qworster

Anon to qworster

Comcast OWNS that network and you only lease it. The same as you leasing a car. The Leasing company can tell you how many miles you can put on it without being charged extra. Could say the same as renting a home. The landlord tells you what you can and can NOT do.



Comcast is the landlord and you are the renter. Their network; their rules.

QC

Premium Member

join:2008-03-02

Cleveland, OH QC to qworster

Premium Member to qworster

That's right, you pay for access. You gotta love TOS agreements.



The "large print giveth and the fine print taketh away". BiggA

Premium Member

join:2005-11-23

Central CT ·Cox HSI

ARRIS SB6141

Asus RT-AC68

BiggA Premium Member Video shouldn't be on mobile While it is nonsense that Netflix would have to pay more for bandwidth they are already distributing to regional CDN's and then paying to transfer beyond that, mobile also shouldn't have video on it. It's just too much load for the precious spectrum.



Netflix also has huge incentive to be efficient- the more efficient they are and tolerant of slowdowns, the better the end user experience is, or the higher quality video they can stream at a given bandwidth envelope.

Bill Neilson

Premium Member

join:2009-07-08

Alexandria, VA Bill Neilson Premium Member Just another reason we will be paying considerably more in the future (above the common increases as time goes on)



We will soon be paying to visit this site, and that site, and that site...and oh, want to see THAT site? $3.99 please 88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) Member at&t=STUPID Considering at&t pays ESPN so it's customers can stream ESPN3.com, but they expect Netflix to pay them? Does that make sense. Using at&t's logic doesn't it cost them money for their customers to stream ESPN3? And yet not only are they not asking for money from ESPN they are paying ESPN to use their pipes? Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd Premium Member Re: at&t=STUPID And that is the power of Sports and Disney corporation. They have the power to make that setup possible with ESPN3.

dynomutt

@speakeasy.net dynomutt Anon GSM Association should be kissing Netflix's feet Thanks Netflix for finding an application for the data service that may actually draw in a critical mass of new subs!



I guess they have Valenti's disease. Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29

Eustis, FL Mr Matt Member Sounds like an instant replay of 1997! During the growth period of the dial up internet business the dial up ISP' were forced to increase network capacity because the average customer's usage increased from 26 to 29 minutes per session in 1996 to 46 to 49 minutes per session in 2000. Competition forced ISP's to expand their networks and lower prices rather than raising prices.



Netflix pays a delivery company to deliver their physical media (DVD's). If Netflix installed a conveyor belt from their distribution center to the shippers location the shipper does not have to carry their physical media for free. This issue presents a real dilemma! Should content providers pay ISP's the cost to upgrade the ISP's networks to deliver the large files required to deliver that content? Amazon.com solved the problem by negotiating a deal with a wireless carrier to carry Kindle's traffic. A company like Amazon.com is in a stronger position negotiate fair pricing. If each Kindle owner had to deal with the ISP individually they would be raped financially. That is what is happening now with the ISP's attempting to impose metered billing and charging large overage fees. The only solution is regulated pricing or competition. During the growth period of the dial up internet business the dial up ISP' were forced to increase network capacity because the average customer's usage increased from 26 to 29 minutes per session in 1996 to 46 to 49 minutes per session in 2000. Competition forced ISP's to expand their networks and lower prices rather than raising prices.Netflix pays a delivery company to deliver their physical media (DVD's). If Netflix installed a conveyor belt from their distribution center to the shippers location the shipper does not have to carry their physical media for free. This issue presents a real dilemma! Should content providers pay ISP's the cost to upgrade the ISP's networks to deliver the large files required to deliver that content? Amazon.com solved the problem by negotiating a deal with a wireless carrier to carry Kindle's traffic. A company like Amazon.com is in a stronger position negotiate fair pricing. If each Kindle owner had to deal with the ISP individually they would be raped financially. That is what is happening now with the ISP's attempting to impose metered billing and charging large overage fees. The only solution is regulated pricing or competition.

cableties

Premium Member

join:2005-01-27 1 recommendation cableties Premium Member Is this ANON friday???



80% of traffic on the net is... S_AM.

Russia and China account for more traffic (Spam, bots, DDOS, malware, worms) than any other country...so charge them!

I read there is so much dark fiber that they might use it for private nets ...



Pry netflix from my cold, dead modem! As for GSM..STFU! Who the Eff are they?? They should tweet like Chrysler! Oh wait, they fired those that tweeted for them and the F-Bomb!80% of traffic on the net is... S_AM.Russia and China account for more traffic (Spam, bots, DDOS, malware, worms) than any other country...so charge them!I read there is so much dark fiber that they might use it for private nets ...Pry netflix from my cold, dead modem! your moderator at work hidden :



firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA firephoto Premium Member It's all paid for Everyone on the network pays someone for their access who in turn pays someone else, etc.



The middlemen (crooks) just want to squeeze more out of the juiciest targets and there's no shortage of operators letting them.

alchav

join:2002-05-17

Saint George, UT alchav Member Re: It's all paid for said by firephoto: Everyone on the network pays someone for their access who in turn pays someone else, etc.



The middlemen (crooks) just want to squeeze more out of the juiciest targets and there's no shortage of operators letting them.

I don't understand your logic, you think the Network was paid for a long time ago, and now everyone is just making a Profit. Well for starters, Infrastructure and equipment wear out, and someone has to pay to maintain it. You and I pay for the every day things like upgrades and maintenance. All the Internet Companies are in it to make money, and to keep these Companies going Investors are needed. Investors like good Companies that make a Profit, and good Dividends. We all love the Internet now, but it does cost us some Money!

firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA firephoto Premium Member Re: It's all paid for this isn't what I was saying. If anyone hosts content somewhere that content is connected to the internet. They are charged for that. Those who do the charging pay for the connection they have to someone else who in turn pay someone else for their connectivity.



It's all paid for but some would pull the smoke and mirrors card out to make it seem otherwise and that some get free rides which is not the case.



And your comment on investors is wrong. They like to make money, that is all. Good companies make money, bad companies make money, predatory companies make money, illegal companies make money. decifal

join:2007-03-10

Bon Aqua, TN decifal Member Greed Greed.. That sums it up elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA 1 recommendation elray Member Re: Greed said by decifal: Greed.. That sums it up





When you open up your broadband charity in my neighborhood, let me know. I'll contribute a few shekels to your cause instead of funding Pravda, I mean my local NPR station. Greed is what drives investment capital. Without it, we would have no cheap long distance, no cheap cell phone service, no high speed internet, no broadband, no HBO, and no Netflix. Yes, that's right, saintly Netflix operates for-profit.When you open up your broadband charity in my neighborhood, let me know. I'll contribute a few shekels to your cause instead of funding, I mean my local NPR station.

IPPlanMan

Holy Cable Modem Batman

join:2000-09-20

Washington, DC IPPlanMan Member Here's to you AT&T... I plan to bankrupt AT&T using Netflix with my iPhone 4 on my unlimited data plan.



Overage this AT&T....

megarock

join:2001-06-28

Fenton, MO megarock Member The irony here is... that without content providers there would be no internet. This can't even be argued with. That means in reality the providers are getting a free ride off the content providers, not the other way around.



Imagine if all the sites you enjoyed visiting shut down leaving you with nothing to enjoy on the internet. It would then become useless and we could all just go back to dial up for e-mail and instant messages. No need for high speed, no need for always on internet and no need for cable or DSL service, period.



I think all the content providers of the internet should lodge a massive protest and shut their sites down for a week so the dumb pipe owners could see what internet usage would look like without content providers. Not only would it get the public's attention but it would also get the providers attention.



Imagine if that were to happen? Kamus

join:2011-01-27

El Paso, TX Kamus Member Re: The irony here is... Think of the childreeen!!

jjspike

@toshiba.ca jjspike Anon ISPs : We can give you everything, but you can't use it The same dogs that offered FAST access to online video, music, web and other services now tell us that we can't use them without paying a premium. They should have stated that the services cannot provide more that 5 minutes of content..... MaynardKrebs

We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.

Premium Member

join:2009-06-17 MaynardKrebs Premium Member Make all 'content' providers pay The logical extension of this is to make every content provider pay for every byte requested from their site/CDN, including:



- Microsoft - for all their patches & service packs

- all the antivirus vendors for their endless updates

- the government - for all the forms we download

- all the news sites - if they'd only just stop reporting the news imagine how much bandwidth the carriers would save

- Facebook - so little value, so many bytes

- weather sites - who needs to know about tornados, hurricanes, tsunami's, or the approaching ice storms

- tabloids - how many different ways do they have to tell us that Pamela Anderson descends from Martians and Adonis DNA?

MerinX

Crunching for Cures

Premium Member

join:2011-02-03 MerinX Premium Member greedy companies ATT=bell of USA

Time warner=rogers of the USA



They have been trying to push UBB with the same silly nonsense and logic bell/rogers get away with in canada. Too bad Americans will never be told they can not eat as much as they want and will not be courteous about being screwed/gouged.

Dryvlyne

Far Beyond Driven

Premium Member

join:2004-08-30

Newark, OH Dryvlyne Premium Member Classic case... of who needs who more. Reminds me of Apple and the RIAA bickering over content. The RIAA somehow thinks they are entitled to money earned via Apple's successful business model. Apple, however, has the upper-hand in the relationship and fortunately has been able to keep the RIAA's greed in check hence why the RIAA is dying for there to be other truly viable challengers to Apple's dominance in the digital music market. You can bet once that happens then variable pricing will become a reality and .99 cent downloads will be a thing of the past.



Anyway, my point is a similar thing is happening here. ISPs need to get it through their greedy minds that if it weren't for the content being served up by companies such as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc... then consumers wouldn't have any reason or incentive to even use their freaking pipes to begin with. It's why you see so many ISPs desperately trying time and time again to create their own content portals or looking for partnerships with content providers. When push comes to shove I firmly believe the content providers have the upper-hand in the relationship. I think the ISPs know this too and it terrifies them hence their aggressive stance against net-neutrality, them wanting to cap and/or throttle users, and desire for artificial usage based billing.

Unit649

I B U, Who U B?

Premium Member

join:2000-01-22

Stockton, CA Unit649 Premium Member Paying twice already, 3 times if you subscribe to something The funny thing about all of this is that ultimately, everyone on the internet pays. Either to connect to it, to push content to it, or whatever. Everyone pays. The average piece of content is paid for twice-once by the content provider paying someone for their connection, and once for the end user paying for the connection to get it.



And now they want those providers to pay more. Course, if netflix is forced to do this, then the end user winds up paying more.



Its not that I think everything on the internet should be free because I pay my price to connect to it, but how much can you honestly keep tacking onto people who not only pay to put content on the internet, but to access it?



Course, trying to push streaming content onto a phone with a 4 inch screen to me is kinda silly, but people do want to do it, and they will pay out of the nose for it. So maybe if they did this, people would pay twice as much a month for it. Who knows. your comment.. page: 1 · 2 · next

