Netflix likes priority deals when they work in their favour.
Isn't this what all businesses want out of the market? Don't they strive to find this warm and fuzzy place? When everything comes up roses?
Well, that didn't take long. "Net neutrality" lobbyist Netflix has smashed a rule that net neutrality activists view as sacred. Netflix is about to launch in Australia and New Zealand after signing what it calls "un-metering agreements" with ISPs. This means that Netflix traffic will be zero rated, and won't count as part of …
They block my IP's to my legitimate host when I travel yet feel they can bill me when away.
They block legitimate VPN access when traveling as well.
In fact, unless you like how they Mind Control the content in the country you're in, they just #EpicFail across my baord....
To be fair that's not so much their fault as the rights owners.
The rights owners usually only give the rights for certain territories, and indeed multiple rights holders may have the exclusive rights for the same property in different areas.
Netflix can either limit geographically, or not have the content at all. I doubt they're any happier about it than you are.
I certainly see no problem with arrangements like this, as long as they are always positive discrimination eg "VOD pay ISP to exclude traffic from bandwidth cap". Clearly we need regulation to ban any anti-competitive agreements, eg "VOD pay ISP to slow down competitors" or "VOD pay ISP to exclude their traffic from caps but stop them making the same deal with other VOD".
It's about trying to keep a competitive market for services on the Internet.
If ISPs zero-rate particular services, then the ISPs are slanting competition toward their preferred winners, rather than the end users choosing the better service.
Also, if the ISPs let anyone zero-rate, but require payment for it, then established players get (yet another) advantage over any innovative new start-ups - who may not have the cashflow to be able to afford zero-rating their service on every major ISP on the planet.
Since netflix will essentially be paying the ISP out of the subscription new startups wouldn't be at a disadvantage, if anything their subscription rates would be lower since they don't include the levy, and if they wanted to pay it, they could too. So all that's required is some regulation to force ISPs to treat all operators equally. eg you pay us 50p per customer and we'll exclude the traffic from the caps.
"Also, if the ISPs let anyone zero-rate, but require payment for it, then established players get (yet another) advantage over any innovative new start-ups - who may not have the cashflow to be able to afford zero-rating their service on every major ISP on the planet."
That applies to just about every small business that compete against large businesses. The start-up corner shopkeeper cannot get the same deals from his suppliers as the supermarket chains can get. the little guy has always had to compete by differentiating himself in other ways - usually using the fact that he is more versatile and can react to demand faster.
I wonder how long unmetered bandwidth is going to remain an advantage? Data caps have been steadily increasing, and the cost of uncapped contracts have been reducing, and I can see a time in the not-too-distant future where it will not be an advantage to most people. I have not had a home broadband service with a cap (or have had data capped by the FUP) for over a decade, and I'm probably paying about £10 per month more than I would for a severely limited service.
The problem is that this amounts to favoritism. Netflix's traffic now has priority over other sources because the latter's data gets metered. The neutrality supporters demand an all-or-nothing stance to non-discrimination. You either throttle/meter ALL the traffic equally (so every bit counts no matter where it comes from) or you throttle/meter NONE of it (making it a flat-rate plan).
@Charles9, not sure that's the case, Netflix paying for a customers ISP b/w limit to be XX GB + Netflix traffic (which is most likely cached at iSP core) v just XX GB per month can be considered priority or a two tier service. Traffic is not shaped or policed based on its source, it's simply a capacity increase.....
Whilst I'm fundamentally a net neutrality advocate I do fee that some of its more zealous advocates are a tad fundamentalist in their out look
On most systems there is a cap to limit traffic, so that busy time the connection isn't too slow. An exception like this slows the ISP for even the users that don't use netflix.
You don't understand how an ISP works. They do not have the capacity to deliver anything like your package speed if everyone used it all the time.
"You don't understand how an ISP works. They do not have the capacity to deliver anything like your package speed if everyone used it all the time."
Then YOU don't understand that when the term "Truth in Advertising" is mentioned, it should be THE truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth, so help you $DEITY. IOW, ISPs shouldn't be advertising the rates they're touting unless they can actually deliver it even under the most adverse conditions they may encounter (such as everyone asking for the same thing at the same time).
Many people aren't willing to pay the charges for an ISP which aims "never to be the bottleneck" (not even taking adverse conditions into account). They really wouldn't like the charges an ISP would need to make if they had to be able to provide all the speed all the time.
The advertising usually is truthful, though for some ISPs it needs an eye on the small print...
If it requires small print to tell the truth, then they're telling HALF-truths, which according to some is actually lying TWICE. This is precisely the type of bait-and-switch advertising that needs to go...YESTERDAY. So what if customers can't afford what they REALLY want. At least they'll be told that up front like they're supposed to.
Fixed bandwidth is a bitch. Thinking NF wants a mulligan. No data caps for anyone! Oh, wait, now that we are not paying for preferred priority everyone our service is sharing the same bottle-necked pipe as the rest of the Internet (including normal cable TV). Can we get data caps for everyone that does not pay, please?
So.... is it a good thing or a bad thing that Netflix have a cache server at TalkTalk so when I stream Netflix - I'm not actually going outside of TalkTalk's network and thus get really fast data transfer with no buffering? Surely in terms of Net Neutrality - this gives Netflix an unfair advantage? Whereas for me - it's the difference between being able to watch Netflix at any time of the day or night - while BBC iPlayer is restricted to only being usable without 10 seconds of buffering every 30 seconds - between the hours of 1am and 6am. If one were to keep going down this road - one could complain that (purely a hypothetical example) Amazon Instant Video might have a better peering agreement than HBO and therefore HBO are at a disadvantage to Amazon.
I'm a big fan of Netflix, but I have to say that I largely agree with Andrew on this one.
Traffic discrimination based on source (rather than protocol needs) is always bad where there is little effective competition between the last mile ISPs.
In this case, Netflix are paying for priority. That's great for them, but equally bad for everyone else which is what the Net Neutrality debate is all about. Putting servers into ISPs' data centres is fine as long as it is helping both the ISP and Netflix with their delivery infrastructures, but prioritising outgoing traffic is a different story.
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of legislation in this area, but it is undeniably necessary for the US where various oligopolies control large swathes of the Internet infrastructure.
Good grief. On what planet are some commentards living? We're talking about a for-profit corporation here, lads and lasses. Netflix understand what they must do to live long and prosper. At least their customers in Australia and New Zealand will be getting better service as a result.
Sure, though those Ausie and Kiwi customers will ultimately pay for that better service.
But this is not really about better service for Netflix customers. It's about whether Netflix is using it's deep pockets to disadvantage NON-NETFLIX VoD services that should be on the same level playing field.
It's about whether Netflix is using it's deep pockets to disadvantage NON-NETFLIX VoD services that should be on the same level playing field.
Level playing fields are antithetical to capitalism. If that's what we want we have to change the West's economic system. Good luck with that. My objection is to the apparent shock and awe some people are displaying in the face of a corporation only doing what corporations do. This is newsworthy but hardly surprising.
> Level playing fields are antithetical to capitalism. If that's what we want we have to change the West's economic system.
Agreed. If realistic competition exists, then I'm all in favour of a free-for-all. Cable networks don't tend to be rife with competition though, it's the nature of the beast. That's the rub.
The NetNeut "activists" you quote seem more like fanatics and are therefore NOT representative of the majority of NetNeut supporters.
But more than anything else, this articles seems more like two fanatics arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
"In practice this means you can slurp as much of the company's OTT TV box sets and movies as you like without worrying about filling up your bandwidth bucket."
Not seeing a problem for the consumer or vendor here.
The NetNeut "activists" you quote seem more like fanatics and are therefore NOT representative of the majority of NetNeut supporters.
Citation needed.
I've seen precious little from anyone claiming to be a "Net Neutrality supporter" that constituted a coherent argument, much less a demonstration of adequate technical understanding of the subject.
So yet again the people who are bowing to blackmail: Netflix, are being blamed for bowing to the blackmail rather than seeing their business destroyed?
Netflix is told "pay us or your content won't get through". WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO? They can either pay and hope they make enough profit to cover the blackmail, or they can say "no, that's not within the net neutrality guidelines" and see their business get butt-fucked by non-net-neutral ISPs.
Why are so many people blaming what seems to me to be the victim?
There is a world of difference between a company paying for a better connection to an ISP i.e. direct peering, and an ISP demanding payments from a company with the threat of deliberately crippling, or even blocking their service.
The latter has been the issue of recent years, especially in the US and why regulation is required. The former is the way the internet has always worked.
in Australia the cost of bandwidth has been traditionally high because there is only limited capacity into the country. If Netflix want to foot that bill and deliver the content direct into the 'in country' ISP through peering or a local CDN then they don't even need to pay the ISP. The ISP is not paying for the international transit costs so delivering Netflix to their customers is a cost neutral proposition.
The US system differs from Australia's. Aussie has data caps and local ISP competition, while US has local ISP monopolies or near monopolies with no data caps. Netflix is not paying to prioritize Netflix data, they are paying the ISP not to have a homeowner's Netflix streaming count against the homeowner's data cap just as other media providers are doing.
Net neutrality in the US is about local ISPs not blocking or prioritising data from one company over another's as they were doing with Netflix. QOS, network management, is fine as long as it does not favor one company's data over another.
I agree with a known coward. Net neutrality was thrown into the public domain after ISPs attempted to charge the consumer and the supplier for the same data transfer.
There is nothing wrong with a content supplier charging the consumer and then picking up the the delivery tab, it's like free delivery from a take-away. Some countries simply don't have the infrastructure for unlimited data so the consumer would be charged more if they used 300GB of data transfer. And that would make Netflix expensive for the user.
This is how the supplier, ISP & consumer can all win without one paying unfairly.