Netflix is now paying Time Warner Cable for faster speeds

[Himanshu Arora]

After entering into paid peering agreements with Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, the online video streaming service Netflix has now agreed to pay Time Warner Cable for a direct connection and faster streams. TWC confirmed that the deal happened in June and the implementation has been rolling out this month.

Netflix represents about one-third of all downstream Internet traffic in North America, while the country’s top four broadband providers, with whom the streaming service now has peering arrangements, represent nearly 68 percent of all high-speed Internet subscribers.

This will be Netflix's last such deal in the US. "Just a handful of US ISPs have required these access tolls, with Time Warner being the last of the four", a company spokesperson said.

Despite the agreements, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has been vocal about the need for strong net neutrality. In an article published on Wired today, he argued that this sort of pay-to-play system that charges both the sender and receiver for the same content, will undermine broadband's true potential.

On the other hand, companies like Comcast have been defending their paid-peering agreements with Netflix, saying this is the way the Internet bandwidth market works.

Netflix had earlier opposed Comcast's proposed $45 billion takeover of Time Warner Cable, arguing that the resulting entity would have unprecedented control over the high-speed Internet market. The company last month urged the FCC to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service.

Although the FCC has said it's looking into these deals, it hasn't promised any regulatory action.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/57788-netflix-is-now-paying-time-warner-cable-for-faster-speeds.html

 

[EClyde]

It's called many things. I will call it strong arming

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

So long as that payment doesn't end up getting passed along to us Netflix customers, this sounds like good news.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

So long as that payment doesn't end up getting passed along to us Netflix customers, this sounds like good news.

Sorry, cannot see how it won't.

 

[wiyosaya]

So long as that payment doesn't end up getting passed along to us Netflix customers, this sounds like good news.

My take is that it probably already is in the $1 increase that Netflix started "passing along" to all new customers a few months back.

I agree that this is strong-arming, as well as badgering, and monopolistic. With initiatives around the country to bring fiber to the home that are being rolled out by companies other than the ISP monopolies, I'd say that the ISP monopolies are setting themselves up to be blindsided. Right now, they are confident in their abusive practices because they believe themselves to the the only game in town. It may take a few years yet, but I think that their "monopoly party time" is coming to an end.

 

[Guest]

And all the time I thought we paid for that high speed....

 

[yRaz]

If I'm paying for a 50mbps connection and the cable company is limiting my connection to a service I'm frequently using, then I am not getting 50mbps. This is theft on the side of ISP's. Hell, ending net neutrality is bad for the people who ended it, not just us. The way things are now the cable company could charge us for Gbps connections and give us 10Mbps claiming they throttle that service.

We are not getting the products we are paying for. The people who ended net neutrality should be drawn and quartered.

 

[cmbjive]

See, this is how you settle things, not with nonsense about "net neutrality". I'm more than happy to pay for the service because I value Netflix. Even with the potential increase, Netflix is still a better value than cable.

And to those who believe this is monopolistic I say balderdash. Having Netflix pay a higher price is no different than having a consumer pay a higher price for order five Big Macs than a person who only orders one. You consume more, you pay more. That's just how it works.

 

[Guest]

Except that isn't the analogy. If I as a customer decide to buy 5 Big Macs (and dear God why would I?) and McDonalds decides to only give me 4 routinely until they workout a deal with the ranchers to cut them in, then that is theft. Taking my moment for a service or good that is promised to be rendered and then not delivering it.

But yeah, it is all balderdash right. /sarcasm

 

[Guest]

Taking my money*

 

[cmbjive]

Except that isn't the analogy. If I as a customer decide to buy 5 Big Macs (and dear God why would I?) and McDonalds decides to only give me 4 routinely until they workout a deal with the ranchers to cut them in, then that is theft. Taking my moment for a service or good that is promised to be rendered and then not delivering it.

But yeah, it is all balderdash right. /sarcasm

That's exactly the analogy. Getting into McDonald's is free, but you're expected to pay for what you consume. An even better analogy would be a theme park: You pay to get into the theme park, but that doesn't give you the right to get free food. You're entitled to rides, but you're limited by how busy the ride is. If you want to get on the rides faster and quicker you pay an additional fee or buy an additional service. The same is with the Internet: All you pay for is the right to access the internet, but that right does not mean you get unlimited access. That may be the fault of the ISPs for not adequately telling consumers that there may be a limit as to how fast your speeds are and how much bandwidth you're allowed. But the internet is not unlimited and Netflix realized this. Net neutrality will not fix this problem and it will be guaranteed to make it worse (where has regulation made anything move faster, smoother, or more efficient?).

 

[tonylukac]

It seems terrible, but I think I side with the isps. There isn't anyone else that has to do this. Our neighbor's comcast regular download speed is about 2m in the evening, because these people are hogging it. How slow will it be for 4k video? They are just not going to change it. I don't regularly stream anything. Why should I suffer? Rent a blu ray for $1.50 at redbox, free at your library. 1080p too. My brother drives 40 miles to rent blu rays, so I don't sympathize.

 

[VernonDozier]

It's called many things. I will call it strong arming

I think service guarantees are worth the investment. It provides a legitimate, commercial way to enjoy content at a reasonable price.

But if your unhappy with the cost and agreements needed for service guarantees, why not go to a torrent website?

 

[yRaz]

It seems terrible, but I think I side with the isps. There isn't anyone else that has to do this. Our neighbor's comcast regular download speed is about 2m in the evening, because these people are hogging it. How slow will it be for 4k video? They are just not going to change it. I don't regularly stream anything. Why should I suffer? Rent a blu ray for $1.50 at redbox, free at your library. 1080p too. My brother drives 40 miles to rent blu rays, so I don't sympathize.

I pay for 300GB of data with a 50Mbps connection. The ISP says, we aren't going to let you use data heavy services at full speed but still charge you for using the data. I'm paying for a service that I simply am not getting. The only people this benefits the the company providing the service. Many people complain about congested lines because of local people streaming so much, so they agree with the throttling. This is just a case of the company overselling what they are capable of providing.

The consumer loses in every aspect of this deal, how can anyone be for what these companies are doing?

 

[Geralt of Rivia]

Wait so...I pay my ISP to access content like Netflix...and Netflix purchases internet connectivity to provide content...and they are...paying again to deliver the content unhindered by ISP's. So how is this right exactly Comcast? Saying "this is how it works" doesn't explain anything.
Companies like Comcast, Time Warner are reasons why our internet fails compared to the rest of the world and why we pay for one thing and get another. Rather than try to pay for and improve infrastructure with the gratuitous amounts of money they stick with an outdated and stressed infrastructure then punish people for using it. With the lack of renewal of the net neutrality act (which im sure a few government officals had their d***s sucked by the major ISP to happen) this is only going to get worse.
I'm getting close to just canceling my internet and say "F it" Ill just go back to the stone age.

 

[Geralt of Rivia]

It seems terrible, but I think I side with the isps. There isn't anyone else that has to do this. Our neighbor's comcast regular download speed is about 2m in the evening, because these people are hogging it. How slow will it be for 4k video? They are just not going to change it. I don't regularly stream anything. Why should I suffer? Rent a blu ray for $1.50 at redbox, free at your library. 1080p too. My brother drives 40 miles to rent blu rays, so I don't sympathize.

Our European friends don't have these issues. Technology is advanced so much we shouldn't even be having this happening. If the ISPs would improve their infrastructure we wouldn't have issues like this. As such, we do because they don't and they have the gall to use the excuse we use too much rather then admit they don't want to spend the money to improve infrastructure and would rather milk what they can from an outdated and stressed infrastructure until it collapses (because they can't see the future beyond dollar signs and are concerned with quick and easy rather then long term investment). Something has to give and something will one way or another.

 

[Geralt of Rivia]

It seems terrible, but I think I side with the isps. There isn't anyone else that has to do this. Our neighbor's comcast regular download speed is about 2m in the evening, because these people are hogging it. How slow will it be for 4k video? They are just not going to change it. I don't regularly stream anything. Why should I suffer? Rent a blu ray for $1.50 at redbox, free at your library. 1080p too. My brother drives 40 miles to rent blu rays, so I don't sympathize.

I pay for 300GB of data with a 50Mbps connection. The ISP says, we aren't going to let you use data heavy services at full speed but still charge you for using the data. I'm paying for a service that I simply am not getting. The only people this benefits the the company providing the service. Many people complain about congested lines because of local people streaming so much, so they agree with the throttling. This is just a case of the company overselling what they are capable of providing.

The consumer loses in every aspect of this deal, how can anyone be for what these companies are doing?

I feel for ya. The fact they limit your data amount is pathetic. The only thing we can do at this point and time is vote with our wallets. Until another company comes along and actually innovates that we can support might be come time to boycott ISP's.

 

[Geralt of Rivia]

Except that isn't the analogy. If I as a customer decide to buy 5 Big Macs (and dear God why would I?) and McDonalds decides to only give me 4 routinely until they workout a deal with the ranchers to cut them in, then that is theft. Taking my moment for a service or good that is promised to be rendered and then not delivering it.

But yeah, it is all balderdash right. /sarcasm

That's exactly the analogy. Getting into McDonald's is free, but you're expected to pay for what you consume. An even better analogy would be a theme park: You pay to get into the theme park, but that doesn't give you the right to get free food. You're entitled to rides, but you're limited by how busy the ride is. If you want to get on the rides faster and quicker you pay an additional fee or buy an additional service. The same is with the Internet: All you pay for is the right to access the internet, but that right does not mean you get unlimited access. That may be the fault of the ISPs for not adequately telling consumers that there may be a limit as to how fast your speeds are and how much bandwidth you're allowed. But the internet is not unlimited and Netflix realized this. Net neutrality will not fix this problem and it will be guaranteed to make it worse (where has regulation made anything move faster, smoother, or more efficient?).

Let me know when you come out of 90's will ya. That is an archaic business practice when it comes to the internet. Many European country's don't even have these throttling and speed issues and Japan just kicked the rest of the world in the *** when it comes to internet connectivity and they pay a lot less then most people in America pay for their paltry speeds.
People pay for X amount of speed for X amount of money. They should get no more and no less. However what is happening now is people who use the internet for its purpose and companies are complaining that they are using to much.
However what the ISP's will not admit too is that rather then improve infrastructure they took that money and pocketed, which they are well in their rights to do as it is their money however what they don't have the right to do is scam customers and lie due to the consequences of their own bad business practices.

 

[DeathByCircuits]

Thank God I have TWC!

 

[tipstir]

It seems terrible, but I think I side with the isps. There isn't anyone else that has to do this. Our neighbor's comcast regular download speed is about 2m in the evening, because these people are hogging it. How slow will it be for 4k video? They are just not going to change it. I don't regularly stream anything. Why should I suffer? Rent a blu ray for $1.50 at redbox, free at your library. 1080p too. My brother drives 40 miles to rent blu rays, so I don't sympathize.

I pay for 300GB of data with a 50Mbps connection. The ISP says, we aren't going to let you use data heavy services at full speed but still charge you for using the data. I'm paying for a service that I simply am not getting. The only people this benefits the the company providing the service. Many people complain about congested lines because of local people streaming so much, so they agree with the throttling. This is just a case of the company overselling what they are capable of providing.

The consumer loses in every aspect of this deal, how can anyone be for what these companies are doing?

If you got 105 mbps or higher there is not data cap of 300GB. Unless they have changed the rules again.

 

[yRaz]

If you got 105 mbps or higher there is not data cap of 300GB. Unless they have changed the rules again.

So I pay more money for a faster connect so they can still throttle my speed only it does count towards a data cap?

Everyone loses but the ISP's. I have no idea where the mentality of getting screwed by companies is a good thing came from.

 

[cmbjive]

Wait so...I pay my ISP to access content like Netflix...and Netflix purchases internet connectivity to provide content...and they are...paying again to deliver the content unhindered by ISP's. So how is this right exactly Comcast? Saying "this is how it works" doesn't explain anything.
Companies like Comcast, Time Warner are reasons why our internet fails compared to the rest of the world and why we pay for one thing and get another. Rather than try to pay for and improve infrastructure with the gratuitous amounts of money they stick with an outdated and stressed infrastructure then punish people for using it. With the lack of renewal of the net neutrality act (which im sure a few government officals had their d***s sucked by the major ISP to happen) this is only going to get worse.
I'm getting close to just canceling my internet and say "F it" Ill just go back to the stone age.

"So how is this right exactly Comcast?"

It's right because it's their service. You're paying Comcast for the privilege of access to the Internet, but the privilege does not endow upon you unlimited access.

However what the ISP's will not admit too is that rather then improve infrastructure they took that money and pocketed, which they are well in their rights to do as it is their money however what they don't have the right to do is scam customers and lie due to the consequences of their own bad business practices.

We have gone from 13.3 Kbps to well over 50 Mbps to even higher in some areas. How exactly have we not improved infrastructure? Is it the fault of the ISPs that demand for their service is far outstripping how much they can supply? By the way, do many European countries and Japan have to deal with a litany of regulators from city all the way to the federal level?

 

[Guest]

See, this is how you settle things, not with nonsense about "net neutrality". I'm more than happy to pay for the service because I value Netflix. Even with the potential increase, Netflix is still a better value than cable.

And to those who believe this is monopolistic I say balderdash. Having Netflix pay a higher price is no different than having a consumer pay a higher price for order five Big Macs than a person who only orders one. You consume more, you pay more. That's just how it works.

You don't get it! Your NETFLIX comes via your ISP cable company. I pay COX for high speed data services, they should not have the right to limit the speed of the data services because I am watching NETFLIX, nor should require NETFLIX to pay more to get that service to my house.
Sooner than later you will be paying your ISP (COX, TW, etc) more money to "NOT" have you video data service slowed down. To put it another way, they will package it to you as "Premium Video Services" so that you get high speed video streaming so that you can watch NETFLIX, Amazon Prime, VUDU, HULU, etc.
The only real way to fight this is with your Congressman and Senator, by letting them know that FCC needs to be 'ALLOWED" to past judgement on this case and require ISP to adhere to net neutrality. It's my data not their's.
A better analogy would be water to your house, you get maximum pressure when you don't need it, unless you pay more for 24-7 max pressure premium services.

 

[tipstir]

Well it's all about what's on the deck of cards. Netflix earnings high, so Comcast wanted a piece of the action. So they had sent in some muscle to throttle down the connections from customers who subscribe to Netflix. This way the force the hand of the CEO of Netflix to give in and pay a ransom fee to have his service not throttled down for their Comcast Customers.

What should happen if the Government started to provide 10 Gbps Internet free for all Tax Payers or charge a small percentage. This would hurt all current ISP because they would be forced to offer lower rates that might go up each year because of that profit margins need to be met.

Again not much you can do it's Comcast or Bust. I've had Cox Communtations New England and they're in league with Comcast. I can't comment about Time Warner.

I was getting 105 mbps down what I did was fix the box outside so that there wasn't any other connected there except for the internet. Doing this my downloads speed had jump to 132 mbps. Now I dropped down back to 50 mbps. Tested the line and I got 97 mbps. Now it's 53 mbps. I wanted to dropped down to the lower tier to 20 mbps since 30 mbps not available. I don't know why you all pay for 50 mbps down. I heard it was $40 a month.

 

[cmbjive]

You don't get it! Your NETFLIX comes via your ISP cable company. I pay COX for high speed data services, they should not have the right to limit the speed of the data services because I am watching NETFLIX, nor should require NETFLIX to pay more to get that service to my house.

No, I quite get it, but you don't. You only pay for the internet, that's it. Your paying for the internet does NOT allow you to get unlimited data to your house. The ISP has every right to regulate how much comes and goes to your home based on the demands of all of its consumers as well as how much data its infrastructure can handle. You forget that having internet is a PRIVILEGE, not a right bestowed upon you because you make a monthly payment.

Sooner than later you will be paying your ISP (COX, TW, etc) more money to "NOT" have you video data service slowed down. To put it another way, they will package it to you as "Premium Video Services" so that you get high speed video streaming so that you can watch NETFLIX, Amazon Prime, VUDU, HULU, etc.

That very well may be true. You know what you do in that instance? You pay them so that you don't have your video slow down. You buy higher speeds to handle the amount of data you stream into your home.

The only real way to fight this is with your Congressman and Senator, by letting them know that FCC needs to be 'ALLOWED" to past judgement on this case and require ISP to adhere to net neutrality. It's my data not their's.
A better analogy would be water to your house, you get maximum pressure when you don't need it, unless you pay more for 24-7 max pressure premium services.

This is stupid. Do you honestly think the *****s that gave us Dodd-Frank and Obamacare will make your life even easier by regulating the internet? It's not YOUR data. You didn't build the infrastructure, you didn't hire the manpower, you didn't invest the billions in engineering and IT, and you definitely aren't the one wasting a quarter of your time begging regulators at various levels to leave you alone so you can spend your time researching ways to upgrade your technology to increase the amount of demands that are coming from your consumers for greater access to data services across the internet.

Your analogy is partially correct. When you use water you are charged based on how much water you consume. The pressure coming to your home is irrelevant other than that it helps push more water to you at a faster rate. That would mean if you wish to consume water quicker and faster you must pay for the increased pressure to help you consume water quicker and faster. You ask a plumber how much it will cost you to upgrade your home to increase the water pressure and then you ask the water utility how much more you're going to pay. The same is true with the internet, but somehow people believe that they have a "right" to the internet.