Comcast/Netflix Dispute

[wuapinmon]

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/netflix-partner-says-comcast-toll-threatens-online-video-delivery/

The NY Times reported last night that Comcast is charging one of Netflix's online delivery components a fee to “transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content.”

Considering Comcast's other business, this almost seems like they're trying to stifle their competition through questionable means.

[Commando]

So is Comcast the shittiest company ever? Man what dicks.

[wuapinmon]

So is Comcast the shittiest company ever? Man what dicks.

I suppose there's a real issue here though. If Netflix is using about 20% of total internet bandwidth (OMFH!), then Comcast is essentially shouldering the cost of their "exit ramps."

But, I think that I would argue that their role as service providers should really require them to grant equal access to all content, regardless of the source or message. What's awesome is that about 20 years from now, I can imagine a scenario wherein there is perfect competition via airwaves; cabling could, conceivably, become a thing of the past, especially if the electric companies figure out how to cheaply push signal across their lines.

I would sell all my wired service provider stocks right now and put the money in something else.

I also hope that the government blocks Comcast's bid to buy NBC. There's a reason why movie studios aren't allowed to own movie theatres.

[Commando]

But if Comcast is offering similar streaming movie services without the surcharge= bulls#it. This concerns me as both a comcast internet user and a Netflix subscriber.

[wuapinmon]

But if Comcast is offering similar streaming movie services without the surcharge= bulls#it. This concerns me as both a comcast internet user and a Netflix subscriber.

Are they? I guess it's really whether or not they're using their broadband spectrum to push their own products. It might be the same cable, but I suppose Comcast could argue that Netflix comes across channels 75-100, while they're using channels 650-750.

however, if they buy NBC, and then decide to stream the content, and it comes across the same channels as Netflix, then there's a huge problem unless they charge their NBC component the surcharge.

[old_gregg]

So is Comcast the shittiest company ever? Man what dicks.

i smell an antitrust suit

[doctorcoug]

Net neutrality just hit the big time.

[Katy Lied]

talked to comcast last week and they gave me the bum's rush about combining my phone and internet with my cable.

"So if you use the internet a lot, our service is faster and cheaper. Do you watch Netflix maam? You do? Here's a way you can get twice the bandwidth for that."

[wuapinmon]

talked to comcast last week and they gave me the bum's rush about combining my phone and internet with my cable.

"So if you use the internet a lot, our service is faster and cheaper. Do you watch Netflix maam? You do? Here's a way you can get twice the bandwidth for that."

This is why I like well-regulated capitalism.

[Goatnapper'96]

I suppose there's a real issue here though. If Netflix is using about 20% of total internet bandwidth (OMFH!), then Comcast is essentially shouldering the cost of their "exit ramps."

But, I think that I would argue that their role as service providers should really require them to grant equal access to all content, regardless of the source or message. What's awesome is that about 20 years from now, I can imagine a scenario wherein there is perfect competition via airwaves; cabling could, conceivably, become a thing of the past, especially if the electric companies figure out how to cheaply push signal across their lines.

I would sell all my wired service provider stocks right now and put the money in something else.

I also hope that the government blocks Comcast's bid to buy NBC. There's a reason why movie studios aren't allowed to own movie theatres.

I dabble in this stuff on occasion, so take this for what it is worth, but I would never plan on wireless or broadband over power to replace either your cable modem or DSL/fiber optic connection. The bandwidth capacity differences are huuuge.

I have read the writing on the wall and all I want to be when I grow up is a dumb pipe provider.

As for this issue, there are two pertinent issues at hand:

The first is Comcast seeking to neutralize competition by degrading the signal. This is at the heart of the net neutrality debate and I agree that any ISP who also provides content should not be allowed to choke out the competition by degrading its signal.

The second issue is whether or not internet companies (content providers) should pay for access to the ISP facilities. I am not so sure I am bothered by an ISP negotiating with content providers for packet priority - which is a clear difference than purposely degrading. Clearly, this model is in its embryonic stage but compensation for using somebody elses facilities to make money does not strike me as onerous and unfair.

[wuapinmon]

Clearly, this model is in its embryonic stage but compensation for using somebody elses facilities to make money does not strike me as onerous and unfair.

Well, if we get abstract for a second, let's say that you could, conceivably, order bottled water to your household pipes, delivered across the city system. If we're paying the city a fee to have access to the pipes and water from them, should the company selling us the bottled water also have to pay a fee to deliver the product?

Ultimately, all of these expenses will get passed along to the consumer.

[Goatnapper'96]

Well, if we get abstract for a second, let's say that you could, conceivably, order bottled water to your household pipes, delivered across the city system. If we're paying the city a fee to have access to the pipes and water from them, should the company selling us the bottled water also have to pay a fee to deliver the product?

Ultimately, all of these expenses will get passed along to the consumer.

Absolutely, but the fact of business is spreading out who collects it is helpful.

Further, what if a bottled water provider is willing to pay the city for priority if/when the pipes are full?

[wuapinmon]

Absolutely, but the fact of business is spreading out who collects it is helpful.

Further, what if a bottled water provider is willing to pay the city for priority if/when the pipes are full?

I think that part of CODB of being the provider is that you have to increase capacity to carry the end-users' wants. Priority just leads to some people not getting the water that they paid for.

[il Padrino Ute]

Comcast sucks. Always has. Always will.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Comcast makes an assload of money off of broadband services. Netflix should just call their bluff and Comcast can either degrade the transmission out of Netflix or choose not to allow their customers to even get on Netflix.

Does anyone think Comcast's customers have so much allegiance to Comcast that they'll stick with Comcast even though they can't get Netflix? The reality is that anyone that cares about Netflix and has a different broadband option (probably a huge majority of its subscribers) will just switch to DSL or some other broadband option. What Comcast is betting on is that enough of their subscribers are forced to go with cable for their TV due to geographic location or some other limitation, and these subscribers that are forced to be on cable will choose the cheaper cable broadband package (TV+Internet) over Netflix because they don't have another choice unless they want to pay substantially more money for separate DSL and Cable. Essentially Comcast is probably using its position as the sole TV provider (other than OTA) in many areas to bully Netflix around.

I personally think that Comcast may have more to lose than Netflix. I know that I would switch from DSL to cable if my DSL company started restricting Netflix.