Netflix pivots on net neutrality

[David Matthews]

In a tweet today, Netflix confirmed its participation in the July 12th Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality. This day of protest seeks to raise the alarm about net neutrality which is in danger thanks to a bill President Trump signed overturning rules put in place by former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Many high profile tech and media companies including Amazon, Pornhub, Reddit, Patreon, Vimeo, Kickstarter, Mozilla, and Etsy have voiced their support and/or participating in the protest.

What makes this interesting is that Netflix has taken heat for seemingly going back on its commitment to net neutrality. Back in 2014, Netflix was a staunch supporter of net neutrality and participated in the "Internet slowdown" where in which various websites displayed loading symbols to represent that ISPs are slowing down data. Recently, the company has stepped back from its initial vigor with Netflix CEO Reed Hastings taking an almost nonchalant attitude regarding net neutrality.

Ironically, Netflix would actually have more to gain if current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai completely reverses net neutrality. Large companies such as Netflix have the money to pay ISPs for "preferred" access but startups and smaller companies stand to lose the most without net neutrality protections in place. In fact, Netflix acknowledged this in a statement to The Verge saying, "There are other companies for whom this is a bigger issue, and we support strong net neutrality protections to ensure the next Netflix has a fair shot to go the distance."

Netflix will never outgrow the fight for #NetNeutrality. Everyone deserves an open Internet. https://t.co/iHfQUjfq2x

— Netflix US (@netflix) June 15, 2017

With the FCC setting the stage to completely remove net neutrality protections, protesters hope to raise awareness on July 12th by prominently displaying messages on their websites about net neutrality. Having large Internet streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon participate will likely be of huge benefit and hopefully make the case for a free and open internet.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/69740-netflix-pivots-net-neutrality.html

 

[psycros]

The only problem with the government enforcing net neutrality is that earlier proposed measures included some disturbing language. Essentially, the FCC's proposals have empowered the government to do what the ISPs want to do: decide who gets traffic priority. This is NOT true neutrality but rather the public sector picking winners and losers rather than the free market.

 

[Evernessince]

The only problem with the government enforcing net neutrality is that they past measures included some disturbing language. Essentially, the FCC's proposals have empowered the government to do what the ISPs want to do: decide who gets traffic priority. This is NOT true neutrality but rather the public sector picking winners and losers rather than the free market.

First, Net Neutrality, as in the laws, does not give the government the ability to pick winners and losers. It merely implements a code of conduct for ISPs. FYI there is nothing in NN allowing government to control traffic priority and god knows where you got that idea. Point out the section, I'd like to see it.

Seriously, when was the last time the ISP market was "free"? ISPs in America have been stagnant for decades and they afford themselves regional monopolies. There is no "Free Market" in a capitalist system when a company can earn the most profit by sitting by their butts, as is the case for Comcast and Charter.

 

[Reehahs]

The only problem with the government enforcing net neutrality is that they past measures included some disturbing language. Essentially, the FCC's proposals have empowered the government to do what the ISPs want to do: decide who gets traffic priority. This is NOT true neutrality but rather the public sector picking winners and losers rather than the free market.

First, Net Neutrality, as in the laws, does not give the government the ability to pick winners and losers. It merely implements a code of conduct for ISPs. FYI there is nothing in NN allowing government to control traffic priority and god knows where you got that idea. Point out the section, I'd like to see it.

Seriously, when was the last time the ISP market was "free"? ISPs in America have been stagnant for decades and they afford themselves regional monopolies. There is no "Free Market" in a capitalist system when a company can earn the most profit by sitting by their butts, as is the case for Comcast and Charter.

Of course, with customer services so bad that it is easier to fix your own problem by getting employment as an engineer with them.

 

[wiyosaya]

I posted this in another thread, but I think it deserves repeating here.

Broadband speeds have soared under net neutrality rules, cable lobby says. An interesting read for anyone interested.

A quote from the article:

Major ISPs have repeatedly told investors that they're boosting network capacity and that Title II hasn't hurt their investment plans.

Total BS that Net Neut and Title II have hurt ISPs.

 

[wiyosaya]

Of course, with customer services so bad that it is easier to fix your own problem by getting employment as an engineer with them.

(y)

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Hey Netflix - maybe we ARE paying attention - we just have a different view of the situation than you do. Considering the entire internet was built without these net neutrality laws you're saying we need so bad - maybe they're not such a big deal.

How arrogant is it to tell everyone who disagrees with you that they're not paying attention? I assume next someone will be telling me to 'wake up.'

 

[oldikes]

Considering the entire internet was built without these net neutrality laws you're saying we need so bad - maybe they're not such a big deal.

The entire internet was built before net neutrality stopped being an obvious given of the internet.
You can thank comcast for literally blackmailing netflix for all of this for the record.
We shouldnt need them, but we do need them. The day ISPs start interfering with what content you can and cant access at full speed is the day the internet turns into a gimmick.
I HATE how many laws the US govt feels the need to create. This is one I agree with. But then again, I think there needs to be some internet freedom/privacy amendments to the constitution so what do I know

 

[Evernessince]

Hey Netflix - maybe we ARE paying attention - we just have a different view of the situation than you do. Considering the entire internet was built without these net neutrality laws you're saying we need so bad - maybe they're not such a big deal.

How arrogant is it to tell everyone who disagrees with you that they're not paying attention? I assume next someone will be telling me to 'wake up.'

In case you didn't know, the internet started as a government only project so there was to reason to have laws in place to prevent abuse by corperations. Just because something was not needed in the past doesn't mean we don't need it now. For example, the USDA wasn't around during the industrial revolution and the raise of the industrial meat packing industry. Muck Rackers made it obvious why it is needed then and now. That is just a ridiculous line of thinking and nothing new would ever come out because "everything's been fine up to this point". No, people change, the world changes. You either adapt or you fall.

But what news didn't make it obvious to you that NN is needed? The fact that the US is paying more for less than nearly every other 1st world country? The fact that comcast gets away with charging companies and customers twice for internet service? Or how about the fact that comcast uses customer's wifi routers to serve other customers in the area? uh, what about Comcast miraculously speeding up Netflix after they paid an extortion fee on top of what they already pay for their bandwidth?

 

[docbillingsley]

Hey Netflix - maybe we ARE paying attention - we just have a different view of the situation than you do. Considering the entire internet was built without these net neutrality laws you're saying we need so bad - maybe they're not such a big deal.

How arrogant is it to tell everyone who disagrees with you that they're not paying attention? I assume next someone will be telling me to 'wake up.'

dude, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. do some freakin' research.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

dude, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. do some freakin' research.

Oh I have - that's why I'm against it. Have you read the other side of the argument?
https://fee.org/articles/net-neutrality-is-about-government-control-of-the-internet/

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

The entire internet was built before net neutrality stopped being an obvious given of the internet.
You can thank comcast for literally blackmailing netflix for all of this for the record.
We shouldnt need them, but we do need them. The day ISPs start interfering with what content you can and cant access at full speed is the day the internet turns into a gimmick.
I HATE how many laws the US govt feels the need to create. This is one I agree with. But then again, I think there needs to be some internet freedom/privacy amendments to the constitution so what do I know

But this isn't a law we're talking about - it's giving the govt control so 'they can protect us.' They say the things we'll be protected from are things like ISP throttling - which wouldn't be fair and would make the internet 'not free'.

If this were an individual law about throttling - then yeah - I'm for it! But it's not. It's about giving them control over an industry they shouldn't have control over.

If you don't like the govt controlling things and making new laws you shouldn't be in favor something that allows them to make as many as they want.

 

[wiyosaya]

Oh I have - that's why I'm against it. Have you read the other side of the argument?
https://fee.org/articles/net-neutrality-is-about-government-control-of-the-internet/

More FUD from the conservative media so that their readers can continue screwing everyone they can.

Yes, if I may presume to speak for others on this side of the NN argument, we all have heard the other side of the argument ad-infinitum. If the conditions were actually as they state in the article, that is, no artificial throttling content just because your customer has what is perceived to be deep pockets, we would not need NN.

Get back to us when you cannot get the content on the internet you want because your ISP is artificially throttling content you want.

 

[wiyosaya]

But this isn't a law we're talking about - it's giving the govt control so 'they can protect us.'

It is not about control. It is about preventing snake-oil vendors from screwing everyone they can because simply because they can, and, more importantly, already are. They need reigning in as they are already screwing everyone they can by abusing a century old telco law, giving crap customer service, and in general, twisting as many arms as they can for their own profit. As I replied to you elsewhere, it is about ethics which all the big cable ISPs have not.

 

[Skidmarksdeluxe]

That scaly FCC chairman is obviously receiving nice kickbacks from these big companies but then so are a lot of others to turn a blind eye to these shenanigans.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

More FUD from the conservative media so that their readers can continue screwing everyone they can.

Yes, if I may presume to speak for others on this side of the NN argument, we all have heard the other side of the argument ad-infinitum. If the conditions were actually as they state in the article, that is, no artificial throttling content just because your customer has what is perceived to be deep pockets, we would not need NN.

Get back to us when you cannot get the content on the internet you want because your ISP is artificially throttling content you want.

right... disagreement = vast right wing conspiracy.

Here - read this... from a Left-Leaning source before this became a debate.
https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

The issue isn't if NN is good or bad - of course it's good. The issue is the govt saying their solution to NN is to take control via making the internet a utility. It's too much control to 'fix' something that isn't even actually a problem or could be fixed easily with a specific law making throttling illegal. You don't need to give up control of something just to fix 1 issue.

The trick of it is the govt saying 'We believe in NN and we need full control to ensure it happens' No - they don't. If they cared that much about NN - there would just be a bill for it.

We agree NN is good - we disagree that the proposed solution is the right way to pull it off.

 

[OldGuru]

dude, you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. do some freakin' research.

Oh I have - that's why I'm against it. Have you read the other side of the argument?
https://fee.org/articles/net-neutrality-is-about-government-control-of-the-internet/

I checked your link reference. Clearly, Drew hasn't a clue. In a perfect capitalistic society, where competition can thrive, no regulation would be needed. Drew claims most consumers have a choice. Maybe where he lives in his little cocoon, but most consumers have no choice - either cable or telco. Both charge about the same for equivalent over-priced lousy service. The Telco made a move to fiber when Google considered coming into the area. The cable company marginally increased the speed since they didn't want to take on the cost of laying fiber. A few years back, when a small competitor wanted to compete, the cable company got the city to restrict the competition to a small neighborhood. They then dropped the price to that of the small competitor so nobody had the incentive to switch. Of course, the small competitor gave up and the cable company raised the price back up to where it was before.
Drew also claimed that Europeans payed much more than Americans for their internet service. From various posts that I have read, the European posters claim they pay considerably less than most Americans for better and faster service.
While I agree with some of the posters that too government over-regulation is bad, in case of monopolistic power, it needs to step in. While cellular service may have competition (although, prices being comparable, one wonders if the price-fix is in), there is very little with internet and, even landlines - you don't see Comcast and Spectrum competing in the same locality nor Verizon and ATT competing.