Netflix signs deal with Comcast to keep streams lag-free

[Guest]

Netflix played host to 33 million subscribers in the US.
That's almost more than the population of my country including the millions of illegal immigrants.

You must be from Canada.

 

[Ghost410]

Capitalism says that someone will build bigger pipes and we'll subscribe to them to get our services at the faster rates we need.

Crony capitalism says that the government will grant de facto monopolies and the current providers and government officials will get richer and richer offering the same old crappy pipes running services slower and slower.

Guess which one we have in the US?

 

[tipstir]

Been reported prices will start to go up by $2 bucks more from current $7.99 they have been testing plans. So right now choices would be a low: $6.99 to stream on one device and $9.99 to stream on 3 devices (this one would replace the current $7.99). Slap on tax on that $9.99 going to be over $10 bucks x 12 = $120 a year.

 

[tipstir]

Digital Times has reported prices will start to go up by $2 bucks more from current $7.99 they have been testing plans. So right now choices would be a low: $6.99 to stream on one device and $9.99 to stream on 3 devices (this one would replace the current $7.99). Slap on tax on that $9.99 going to be over $10 bucks x 12 = $120 a year.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

This is a disappointing move by Netflix, which sadly is setting a dangerous precedent with what appears to be a pay-to-play between ISPs wanting to get paid on two fronts. Already saw that both AT&T and Verizon are in "negotiations" with Netflix to strike a similar deal.

Did you read anything about this online? This whole comment section has blown up based on assumptions and prejudice. Check out the story on ABC News about it. There's no net neutrality issues... no strange deals that don't already exist in the industry.

Here are a couple excerpts ...
"Previously, Netflix was paying a firm that connects with Comcast, but with this new deal, the company is paying Comcast directly; and Netflix is likely paying less for this direct relationship" So... no reason to raise costs for customers.

"Hodel said he doubts that the deal is a significant new source of revenue for Comcast. " - No extra money for Comcast either...

"This isn’t an issue about net neutrality per se, any fledgling media service will now feel compelled to deal directly with Comcast to match the experience that Netflix delivers. Hodel said. “Middlemen like Level 3 now have less scale to negotiate against ISPs like Comcast, so the prices and service levels they can offer to a new entrant aren’t as good. I have to point out, though, that this type of dynamic isn’t unique to this industry – there are lots of businesses where scale provides benefits to those firms that have it, to the detriment of those who don’t.”
Translated - New media companies would deal with Comcast instead of Level 3 because Level 3 will have less bargaining power now.

Can we forget about this now and please save the freaking out for something that actually matters?

 

[Guest]

If anyone is to blame for castrating Net Neutrality, it is those lousy Republicans. Damn them to hell!

Your guys have been in power for almost 5 years now. With 2 years of unrivaled power(House,WHouse,Senate) without republicans being able to block a vote. That's what led to the ACA, which seems to be working wonders. Tell me again how a party with a vote blocked minority can have an affect on net neutrality. If the Dems wanted it. They would get it. If you are going to play the blame game, at least blame the right people. Until then, quit infecting the net with your Kool-aid mentality.

 

[Guest]

If anyone is to blame for castrating Net Neutrality, it is those lousy Republicans. Damn them to hell!

Your guys have been in power for almost 5 years now. With 2 years of unrivaled power(House,WHouse,Senate) without republicans being able to block a vote. That's what led to the ACA, which seems to be working wonders. Tell me again how a party with a vote blocked minority can have an affect on net neutrality. If the Dems wanted it. They would get it. If you are going to play the blame game, at least blame the right people. Until then, quit infecting the net with your Kool-aid mentality.

 

[wastedkill]

Let me remind everyone that profit margins for ISP's is less than $0 the amount of $trillions it costs JUST to upgrade the systems to get a extra 10mb out of the current connection costs $9.8trillion dollars Google spent $107Trillion dollars upgrading to 1Gbps.

According to these statistics its no wonder ISP's are having a hard time breaking even and having to charge netflix for not throttling lets not forget comcast gets fined $9.8billion for accepting netflix's Free content server free of charge for $9.8billion fine so hence why they didnt accept it.

Also lets take into account 1Gbps from google costs $80 a month which is $79.99 expensive for consumers to pay hence why Comcast cant upgrade their services from the 1980's.

Comcast got a 28% jump in subscriptions, no wonder they cant pay to upgrade the systems to accomodate the futures growth specially with only getting a measly $8billion profit which is nothing compared to how much it would cost to upgrade the systems($15.9trillion), I am amazed google has managed to pull it off soo easily unlike comcast.

 

[Guest]

Google spent $107Trillion dollars upgrading to 1Gbps.

Are you kidding me? 107 Trillion dollars? Google as a company is only worth an estimated 270 Billion. What orifice did you pull those numbers out of?

 

[wastedkill]

Are you kidding me? 107 Trillion dollars? Google as a company is only worth an estimated 270 Billion. What orifice did you pull those numbers out of?

Well people think it costs that much to ugprade stuff so I am just playing along to their silly game, Comcast has ZERO problem upgrading systems to accommodate future changes yet people cry like they cant afford it as it cost trillions of dollars (not, $100mill max will add atleast 100PB bandwidth)

 

[Relic]

Did you read anything about this online? This whole comment section has blown up based on assumptions and prejudice. Check out the story on ABC News about it. There's no net neutrality issues... no strange deals that don't already exist in the industry.

Can we forget about this now and please save the freaking out for something that actually matters?

My post never said it violated net neutrality, at least the way the FCC views it with its Open Internet guidelines. There are many that do feel it violates the spirit of net neutrality and its origins which I agree with. Now this deal by itself is by no means the be all, end all of the internet as we know it and in the short term will surely benefit Comcast customers. What worries me however is the precedent this sets and the long term consequences of it. Arstechnica has a good followup on this very real issue.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

My post never said it violated net neutrality, at least the way the FCC views it with its Open Internet guidelines. There are many that do feel it violates the spirit of net neutrality and its origins which I agree with. Now this deal by itself is by no means the be all, end all of the internet as we know it and in the short term will surely benefit Comcast customers. What worries me however is the precedent this sets and the long term consequences of it. Arstechnica has a good followup on this very real issue.

Yes, it looks like an issue, but not for the customer. They talk about the barriers to entry for a new carrier because Comcast is able to make service deals because of their size. So we get better service at the price of new ISPs having trouble competing. Sounds like a similar sort of effect Walmart has on the city. They can put the little guy out of business but it means better prices for the customers.

The difference here though is the 'little new ISP' is hypothetical for the most part. You can't really start an internet service like you can open a grocery store.

 

[tipstir]

COMCAST too much in control and the FCC needs to regulate the rules as no one owns the internet was wide open years ago. But COMCAST wants a huge profits so they forced Netflix to give some our money to COMCAST so they don't throttle down the connection speed through their customers who don't want to use COMCAST over pricing CATV services.

 

[Relic]

Yes, it looks like an issue, but not for the customer. They talk about the barriers to entry for a new carrier because Comcast is able to make service deals because of their size. So we get better service at the price of new ISPs having trouble competing. Sounds like a similar sort of effect Walmart has on the city. They can put the little guy out of business but it means better prices for the customers.

The difference here though is the 'little new ISP' is hypothetical for the most part. You can't really start an internet service like you can open a grocery store.

They are talking about all services, not just carriers. And I find this can very much adversely affect consumers, especially if this turns into a norm. Your Wal-Mart analogy isn't really applicable either, as Wal-Mart does not control the roads, how traffic flows over those roads, or the overall real estate picture of a given location. Comcast and the other ISPs however do in this scenario, and to top it off they have a business interest that runs in conflict with many of the services they are targeting.