Yes, but only in the US

The terrible, inaccurate reporting about this story has been pretty depressing, and risks obfuscating *actual* issues of net neutrality.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/m…

Uhm, what @2 said. I don't like to be all Goldy-bashing (like some people around here), but maybe read a couple of different sources before posting an inflammatory headline? And maybe sources closer to the industry than major news outlets?

I mean, I know that's how you get people to read, and that's how you make money, and everything, but you're pretty darned wrong on this one...

Net neutrality is hyper-important, but I suggest you all also read this: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=2…

It's another technical take on what @2 linked. Goldy, check out both of these. The Netflix deal isn't a net neutrality killer. It's something different and part of the underlying structure of the Internet.

@2: That blog has a lot of interesting information, but could that guy be more condescending? There's nothing worse than nerds insisting how "simple" the arcane facts they've devoted their life to are.

He learned rule #1 of being a news consumer. When journalists write about a subject you are intimately acquainted with, you realize that they really don't know shit about anything. All they know is that something happened and they have a deadline to meet.

For once I agree with Will. The Internet will continue humming along just fine in the rest of the world.

Here in the Netherlands, the two largest cable companies (Ziggo & UPC) are looking to merge. It's caused some minor consternation, but nobody's too concerned. They're both actually regulated. My cable TV/internet service is 48 euro per month for 100-odd real channels and 20 megabit internet. I could get 30 mbit DSL alone for 20 euro/month. Net neutrality? A given. Filtering, traffic shaping, deep packet inspection to track customer behavior? Illegal.

The FCC is worst kind of captive regulatory body, mendacious and actively selling out the public interest. (Sort of like Congress, the worst sort of captive *legislative* body.)

Even though I knew intellectually (and because my insufferable European friends wouldn't shut up about it) that Americans were generally getting bent over for the benefit of private rentiers by our utterly co-opted government, I didn't really get what that meant until I got cable and phone service in a country with a comparatively functional government that generally serves the public interest. The US is getting left behind.

Netflix isn't paying to get it's dick sucked, it's paying to not get punched in the face. It still sets a bad precedent.

The peering arrangements are why a site like YouTube can seemingly provide unlimited streaming capacity for free while a small business would struggle with the bandwidth fees to host a modest number of videos on a traditional CDN. Google has purchased enough network infrastructure that they can trade bandwidth on their infrastructure for bandwidth on other's.

Network neutrality is important, but to a large extent has never existed, does not exist now, and will never exist because private companies own so much of the Internet backbone and play by completely different rules than the companies who pay ISPs for access.

Netflix appears to be transitioning from a company which pays for access to a company which is pursuing lower-level agreements. I don't know if it previews a future in which we lose net neutrality so much as putting an exclamation point on the fact we don't have it now.

I see a lot of people saying there are problems with the article but no one clearly specifying why it's inaccurate.

Basically, Netflix was paying a third party to handle their traffic. This third party got almost all of the internet providers to play nice about giving Netflix more bandwidth when it was needed, but Comcast held out. Netflix has now cut out the third party and is sending their data directly to Comcast; there is no additional cost to have to put on the shoulders of the consumers.

However, this does set precedent that Netflix will deal with ISPs if they hold Netflix's bandwidth hostage, so other greedy corporations might try to start squeezing Netflix. Only time will tell.

"Comcast claims that Netflix will receive "no preferential treatment." Well then, what exactly is Netflix paying for, then?"

Nice connection you've got there. Sure would be a shame for something to happen with it..

Comcast is not giving Netflix preferential treatment, in that they will undoubtedly take the money of a Hulu or Amazon to give the same service.

To put it in simple terms terms: Comcast will not upgrade its existing internet links ever again (basically - and TWC does the same thing.) The current links get filled up at peak times resulting in shitty performance for the Comcast home customer. Shitty performance at peak times is Comcast's lever to force people (like Netflix) who want to offer network services that rely on better-than-shitty throughput, latency, or loss characteristics to become customers on the other side - by paying for their own private network connections to serve Comcast home customers.

Those home customers are paying for what exactly? A network that never gets any faster unless Google threatens to come to town? This is just monopoly gouging and double-dipping.

@11

To put it in simple terms terms: Comcast will not upgrade its existing internet links ever again (basically - and TWC does the same thing.) The current links get filled up at peak times resulting in shitty performance for the Comcast home customer. Shitty performance at peak times is Comcast's lever to force people (like Netflix) who want to offer network services that rely on better-than-shitty throughput, latency, or loss characteristics to become customers on the other side - by paying for their own private network connections to serve Comcast home customers.

This is why we need a Mayor willing to end any telco monopolies forever.

@7 and @11 both sum it up nicely. I'm paying Comcast $(far too much) to buy bandwidth from cogent or whoever. I'm paying Netflix to buy bandwidth from cogent or whoever. Now I'm also paying comcast a second time via netflix. It's double-dipping, it's wrong, and it's a shame Netflix didn't just tell all their customers to continue complaining to Comcast.

Not sure as a taxpayer I want to be on the hook for billions invested in a technology that could become obsolete overnight. If you want a good laugh, read the Washington laws permitting the formation of public television reception districts. All the public utility districts bury their (significant) telecom losses in their electric rates, and I wouldn't be thrilled about jacking up some poor lady's electric rates so the moron next door can stream movies all day.

"All the public utility districts bury their (significant) telecom losses in their electric rates, and I wouldn't be thrilled about jacking up some poor lady's electric rates so the moron next door can stream movies all day."

KK dear, Washington State has many public utility districts, yet only a few of them (that I am aware of, but I am just a humble municipal employee) have any sort of telecom services. Would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to which public utility districts are being so unfair to your highly theoretical "lady" ?

Why is this any different than HOT lanes on 167 and tolls on the 520 bridge (things that nearly all Libocrats support)?

Well, there's obviously a certain problem that exists, and a common logical way to fix it: Similar to electricity usage where there is a huge spike in urban electrical use between 5-9:00PM when everyone comes home and starts flipping on lights (etc), residential Internet usage also spikes in the evening. (Commercial internet use, naturally, spikes in the morning & runs high during the daytime).

So if we consider the Internet as an "information utility", which it is, perhaps it should be managed like public utility companies, so that they simply build in anticipation of peak usage spikes, and make sure there aren't any "information brownouts", like what seems to be happening today.

But it seems that the private zaibatsus that operate the switches and routers of the Internet are treating it like private property, and charging for special access to the main road of their data ranches, while we "consumer/citizens" are forced to use the shoddy foot path that takes the long way around.

Are the electrical lines in the city considered "private property" which other corporate entities pay extra for privileged access?

This is why Comcast and Time/Warner should not be allowed to merge. It will not lead to "innovation", and it will not lead to increased competition, but will further drive up prices for a monopoly in a post net neutrality market.

"Netflix has agreed to pay Comcast to ensure the subscription service's movies and TV shows stream seamlessly in a deal that underscores the power of distribution in the digital era — and could mean higher rates for consumers."

And this is an example of why we need municipal fiber to the premises internet.

Comcast has monopolized a market, constrained it, is charging a premium because they can, and not improve service, because they don't have to.

So, troll dear, how does your apparently very hazy recollection of the Chelan PUD's finances "a few years ago" translate to ALL of the public utility districts in the state burying their "significant telecom losses" in their electric rates? And if you know about such losses, how does that equate to their "burying" them in the electrical rates?

Its a dick move, but what this really does is kill businesses for 3rd party backbone providers like Cognet. Instead of Netflix paying Cognet, they'll pay Comcast directly, passing that middleman. The problem is, many backbone providers will lose out as more and more content providers like Netflix, bypass them and go straight to the ISP.

The slow traffic for Netflix is basically a peer/congestion issue. Do you know why people with private VPNs didnt have a problem with this? Its because those VPNs re-routed the traffic around the congestion. Running fiber and providing gigabit speeds wont really solve this problem, because if suddenly Netflix or Amazon Prime 4K web streaming becomes the norm, the ISP would then see a fuckton of traffic going through their servers, thus crippling it. Suddenly the ISP has a few choices, either upgrade at their expense, block the traffic, re-negotiate their peer agreement (if possible) or simply charge the content provider. It doesn't matter that you personally pay $70 a month for gigabit service, its the fact that the ISP servers are getting slammed with 4K video traffic. You honestly think Google wouldn't have a problem in Kansas City if 25% of their customers were all streaming 4K video at 8pm? Its easy to sell gigabit speeds when you know damm well most people cant get more than 100mb speeds.

@22 - While that's overall accurate, the ISP's "servers" have little to do with this. It's the ISP's routers and transit/peer connections that are being overloaded. Semantics, but it's a fairly significant difference.