Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, February 24, 2014

An escalating battle between Netflix and the largest Internet service providers is degrading service for the streaming video company's customers, Time reports. With the explosion of high-bandwidth services like Netflix, which accounts for a massive amount of Internet traffic, the traditionally amicable peering relationship between bandwidth providers is starting to break down. This is a scenario that open Internet advocates have been warning about for years. It's no secret that the big telecom and cable companies resent the fact that they are obliged to deliver high bandwidth content like Netflix -- which competes against their own video offerings -- in addition to less bandwidth-intensive traffic like emails and chats.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

BillJohnson

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

So much for neutrality. You're supposed to buy movies from your cable/ISP.

#1 | Posted by reitze at 2014-02-23 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Reitze,

Like so many ideas, Net Neutrality is a concept that won't survive the test of time.

How about "freedom of speech" on the internet?

Are we really allowed to say whatever we want? Of course not.

Capitalism is going to take over the Internet.

I mean...once Comcast and Time Warner merge, how much support do you think Netflix will get considering it's competing with their own cable television services?

#2 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-23 08:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I'm surprised that something like Netflix can even exist with the current bandwidth.

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-02-23 08:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm surprised that something like Netflix can even exist with the current bandwidth.

What do you mean? Streaming video takes at most 9 Mbps most people have access to at least 15 Mbps for fairly reasonable prices.

Crossing my fingers that we are selected for the next roll out of google fiber 1 Gbps I would so stream on every device I own just to say I did.

#4 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-02-23 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Netflix is like crap in a sewer. At some point, they need to pay for the pipes they're clogging.

#5 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-02-23 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

BS. Netflix is a service. As is my ISP and I don't pay them to throttle services I request through them. I pay for "high speed" internet at all times, not just when they feel like delivering.

#6 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-02-23 10:39 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"I'm surprised that something like Netflix can even exist with the current bandwidth."

What do you mean? Streaming video takes at most 9 Mbps most people have access to at least 15 Mbps for fairly reasonable prices.

But it's not the last mile that's the issue. It's the backbone in between that is getting clogged. It's like a highway with too many cars. The cars aren't moving as fast as they should, but the exit ramps are fine

#7 | Posted by goatman at 2014-02-23 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"What do you mean? Streaming video takes at most 9 Mbps most people have access to at least 15 Mbps for fairly reasonable prices."

What I mean is I get about 3 Mbps on a really good day in the middle of the night.

Certainly most people have better speeds, because most people live in huge cities with better infrastructure.

Maybe if people like you who want to "stream on every device I own just to say I did" stopped doing that, bandwidth outside of your little "Me" bubble would improve.

#8 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-02-23 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Could be Redial or you could chose to live somewhere with bandwidth.

We each make trade offs. I had a chance to live in the country would have been a bit less money but the benefits of not being in a city. I chose the city for exactly the kind of reason that I like to be able to stream on every device. You have clean air and less crime better neighbors etc. I have convenience.

#9 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-02-23 11:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It could also be that if more people demanded access to the actual level of service they pay for, the ISP's might invest some of their money into infrastructure. I have no sympathy for their excuses about the amount of traffic when their product is overpriced as it is.

#10 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-02-23 11:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Good point zero if google can provide fiber 1 Gig speeds for 70 a month then why am I paying 72 for 50 Mbps? Yeah I know google taking a loss initialy to get the service out there. Still they offer 5 Mbps for 7 years for just the 300 dollar installation fee. TWC wants 30 for 3 Mbps forever is google really going to loose 360 bucks a year for 7 years? No because the cost is nowhere near 360 bucks a year to provide 5 Mpbs.

#11 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-02-24 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's the backbone in between that is getting clogged. It's like a highway with too many cars. The cars aren't moving as fast as they should, but the exit ramps are fine

#7 | Posted by goatman

After all it is just a "series of tubes"...Are the tubes all clogged again?

Paging Senator Stevens!

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-24 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

No wonder netflix signed a deal with comcast!

#13 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2014-02-24 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's all about the money. Verizon comcast twc or charter should have bought them lock stock and download for 5 billion when they had the chance

#14 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2014-02-24 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

John Malone should have done it......

#15 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2014-02-24 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

BS. Netflix is a service. As is my ISP and I don't pay them to throttle services I request through them. I pay for "high speed" internet at all times, not just when they feel like delivering.
#6 | POSTED BY ZEROPOINTNRG

Silly ness, if everyone got on there phones at the same time the system would collapse. If everyone turned on their powered devices we would have a blackout.
Netflix, and YouTube consume 45% of bandwidth at peak hours. The only question is what should it cost for premium guaranteed bandwidth delivery?

Good point zero if google can provide fiber 1 Gig speeds for 70 a month then why am I paying 72 for 50 Mbps?

Google can make money on the internet via ads, if you consume Youtube, google is making money..... so they are getting revenue at both ends. The ISP isn't.

No wonder netflix signed a deal with comcast!
#13 | POSTED BY DAVETHEWAVE

Exactly, but you don't want it to happen this way.... You want those that want guaranteed bandwidth to pay for it. Because now you are going to get rid of the little fish (Hulu) that is trying to compete with NetFlix....... This is where NetNeutral on the backend is important.

#16 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-02-24 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Andrea the point is that if my ISP sells me 50 Mbps speed they should deliver it. If they can not deliver it they shouldn't sell it. If they need more money than I am paying to provide it they should charge more but to say that they oversold it so oh well is crap.

If an airline oversells their seats they refund the ticket and provide you a hotel room. If an ISP oversells bandwidth they just say screw you.

#17 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-02-24 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

If someone was to run at maximum speed 24 hrs a day for a month, I guarantee they would go over a data limit.

Obviously, it was never intended for us to misuse bandwidth.

Just like everything else in life, there is a certain level of social responsibility even on the Internet.

#18 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2014-02-24 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

the point is that if my ISP sells me 50 Mbps speed they should deliver it. If they can not deliver it they shouldn't sell it.
#17 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-02-24 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well said. My point exactly. I expect what I pay for as a consumer. If they are not able to deliver the full amount of service they offer to everyone at all times, then they are making a dishonest offer, and it's perhaps time to start looking at class action lawsuits for the money back for services paid for but not delivered.

#19 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-02-24 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

zeropoint... that is exactly what they did. Made a dishonest offer.

When I started my account many many years ago it was for 50 Mbps. As an IT professional I could tell they were throttling me way back. Industry proved they were. SO they redid all our contracts to say that now we are capped at a certain data limit to cover their rears.

I would sign onto a class action suit in a nanosecond. The problem (as usual)is proving how much they have robbed us. Unless you have a bandwidth monitor you will never know you are getting throttled or who is causing your internet to slow down (even then it is tough to pinpoint the exact server/cause and they know this).

#20 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-02-24 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm for net neutralize, if we pay for the bandwidth we should be able to use it as we see fit.

#21 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2014-02-24 08:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

But it's not the last mile that's the issue. It's the backbone in between that is getting clogged. It's like a highway with too many cars. The cars aren't moving as fst as they should, but the exit ramps are fine.
#7 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

This is simply not the case. There's no bandwidth shortage on the backbone. The bandwidth cost for Netflix to stream a movie is a few pennies.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-24 09:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

There's no bandwidth shortage on the backbone.

Then streaming cross country instead of locally as the ISPs desire shouldn't be a problem and this shouldn't be an issue.

#23 | Posted by goatman at 2014-02-24 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

It isn't really goat. Although web hosting ought to be more expensive but be mirrored in multiple places. That would decrease over all load and increase performance. It would be good for the site owner as well since with multiple mirrored servers around the globe you would never go down and their users would get better speed.

#24 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-02-24 11:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Internet in the usa is exactly what happens when you allow the fascisti to turn it into feudalism. Contrast it to most of the rest of the planet where it is faster and cheaper for the masses and you understand the reality of what americans call 'capitalism'.

#25 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-02-24 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

What Shawn said.

Then streaming cross country instead of locally as the ISPs desire shouldn't be a problem and this shouldn't be an issue.
#23 | Posted by goatman

It isn't an issue. There is no technology problem here. This is just (capitalist) pigs fighting for position at the feed trough.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-25 02:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Luckily I haven't had any issues with streaming from Netflix on Verizon. While I work I generally have it running as background noise so it's almost constantly streaming.

I sort of understand the issue but it's not anyones fault but their own that they didn't factor in the rise in popularity of content streaming into their pricing.

#27 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-25 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Monopoly, in today's capitalism, isn't only permitted, it's ubiquitous. Both Comcast and Time-Warner are already monopolies. This merger is merely a logical extension. Since 1990, Comcast has acquired AT&T Broadband and then literally dozens of local and regional cable companies. It also bought MGM, Universal Pictures, a controlling interest in the NBC system, a dizzying array of companies like theme parks and investment firms and over a dozen local systems previously controlled by Time-Warner.

Both Comcast and Time-Warner routinely appear on lists of "the worst companies in the country". Consumers have continuously complained about both systems' down-time and spotty, often dismissive, customer service. They also complain about content. Much specialized and "alternative" programming available on satellite dish and some local cable systems can't be found on Comcast or Time-Warner. If you're a big cable subscriber, you won't find Free Speech TV or Link TV.

Comcast's case is 400% above the average cable price in Europe. If the merger is approved, Comcast will control the Internet's access and speed. Internet activists expected and warned of developments like this when the courts threw out Net Neutrality in January but the speed with which Comcast has moved has surprised us. (Alfredo Lopez)

#28 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-02-25 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.wral.com

Somehow I missed this story when it first came out but looks like netflix caved and will be paying comcast for fast lanes.

#29 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-02-25 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do not use Netflix as we live out in the country and use a Verizon 4G MiFi for our internet connection so we are paying for 12 Gigs a month and movie downloads would not be cost effective for us.

#30 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-02-26 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

The US is beginning to look less and less like an "advanced" country these days.

#31 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-26 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort