Netflix users on Verizon and AT&T get raw deal, have little reason for hope

Customers are the victim of stalled negotiations between ISPs and Netflix.

Read the whole story

 

[Rain Rain]

Stalled negotiations? Try stalled blackmail

 

[yasai]

So what happened in September? Looking at the chart both AT&T and Verizon have sharp drops in service that month. I spent a few minutes Googling but didn't find a satisfactory answer.

 

[appleseed]

Said it before, will say it again:

F
U
C
K

Y
O
U

AT&T/Southwestern Bell!

 

[tedkord1]

If ISPs would prefer we use their video streaming services rather than Netflix, maybe they should make them worth at least a crap.

 

[ToolGuy3]

Essential services should NEVER be provided by profit making companies unless at least three different entities legitimately compete for the business. Either through regulation or even nationalization, the consumer should be protected from monopollies.

 

[Metaphysical]

missitnoonan[/url]":2afi0a9g]I don't really get all the Netflix support (I'm a subscriber to Netflix and Fios internet). Netflix hasn't changed streaming prices even as usage has soared, maybe it's time to up the cost and pay the ISPs if the average user really is consuming 100GB a month.

Because usage isn't Netflix's customer's problem, it's the ISP's, and that's what they are paid for. They are trying to pass the buck, and in the end, it's the customer who gets short changed.

 

[jbrodkin]

dsparil[/url]":3vbfym88]

"Why is Netflix so unreliable?" That's one of the most common questions asked by Internet users today.

That also has a simple answer. Cogent was not delivering the service that Netflix was paying for, sending traffic to subscribers at high speed. The issue has always been with Cogent. From an article I link to further down, "To date, Cogent has had peering disputes with AOL, Teleglobe, France Telecom, Level 3, TeliaSonera, Sprint-Nextel and Verizon".

On any network, AppleTVs get their Netflix stream via Level 3 or Limelight and there have never been any issues. I only watch Netflix on my AppleTV, and despite having Comcast as my ISP, I have always had excellent video quality and uninterrupted streaming.

This article has very good information on the deal that Netflix made with Comcast. It also disputes the $0.01/GB number given by Wedbush on the grounds that the type of deal Netflix made is generally charged by throughput rather than data size. The article also estimates using publicly available information that Netflix is paying $18m per year. The Wedbush derived numbers are basically pulled out of thin air.

Google "Apple TV netflix problems" and you'll find support forums disproving the notion that there are no problems. This is both a Level 3 and Cogent problem. That claim about Apple TV seems to have been pulled out of thin air.

 

[valkyriebiker]

The tension and conflict of interest among ISPs is inherent and unavoidable under current rules.

ISPs should be DELIVERING content and should not be allowed to have any interest in the content being produced. Owners of data-delivery pipelines must not have an interest in the contents of said pipes.

 

[DeerSteak]

Any time you can, get an alternate ISP. My parents have CenturyLink DSL 3mbit and get HD resolutions during prime-time hours. I know a lot of people only have one choice, or have hte choice between Comcast cable and Verizon/AT&T DSL, and I feel bad for them. Still, where possible, don't give them your money!

 

[MonkeyPaw]

I know this is just anecdotal, but we have a measly 1.5mbps DSL service from the Blue Deathstar, and Netflix usually streams just fine. It takes about 5-10 seconds to buffer and then it's showtime. We practically live on Netflix, and this is our experience probably 95% of the time. The only time we run into buffering is when someone has streaming going on elsewhere in the house. I don't see 4K making it through, but that's probably beyond my speed tier anyway. My big complaint with AT&T is their terrible pricing. If I didn't call them and complain, I'd be paying $41/mo for 1.5mbps. That's just absurd.

 

[pirates-running-amok]

Taking a look at Verizon's Internet coverage map, it's not very large, so I assume with them it's about shutting out competition to maximize profits.

AT&T is soaking it's old POTS line for all it's worth, it can't handle much more, it's about shutting out competition and maximizing profits there too. Likely the future with them is to replace the POTS line with optical cable, but it takes a lot of time to do so.

Netflix made a deal with Comcast because they got cable bandwidth to spare and the only ones able to keep them in business and provide a future with even higher quality streaming services.

With all the trillions printed up to pay for the sub-prime bailout mess, the millions out of work, the miles of eyes in the skies on all the roads, you think the government could have put hundreds of thousands back to work laying fiber optic cable across the US and leased it out for immense profits.

I don't like to see Comcast or anyone getting too big, competition is good to keep prices down and service up.

 

[Deleted member 250988]

How are you enjoying capitalism and free markets? Over here in the commie EU it just works...

Big talk about being the greatest country in the world meanwhile get screwed by isp, telco, govt, sued out of existance by trolls and your representative stands there filling his pockets.

Gotta love all that freedom ;-)

 

[Reverb8681]

appleseed[/url]":3buz35m2]Said it before, will say it again:

F
U
C
K

Y
O
U

AT&T/Southwestern Bell!

That this comment does not have negative points says a lot.

 

[kieriosity]

haneefmubarak[/url]":24gqhai0]

Rain Rain[/url]":24gqhai0]Stalled negotiations? Try stalled blackmail

That's so true. On one hand, AT&T and Verizon want to force Netflix to pay for any upgrades that Netflix wants, while on the other hand Netflix is trying to force AT&T and Verizon to cut into their margin to upgrade the links that Netflix traffic crosses.

Two-way blackmail. Now, won't it be exciting when the regulators come in and we get to have a threeway?

XD

Unfortunately, it should be a three-way with the consumers being able to demand (blackmail?) the ISP to provide the level of service they expect regardless of the source traffic. Unfortunately, with few options because of oligopolistic collusion, you pay high prices for terrible access to the certain areas of the Internet from which the ISPs want more money. It's been said time and time again, Netflix upgrades their network to handle the demand from its customers; now it's time for the ISPs to do the same.

 

[Jon Ghast]

missitnoonan[/url]":16pxyzp3]My Fios service is excellent for everything except Netflix.

If you don't see that as both problematic and suspicious, then we really can't help you.

 

[AreWeThereYeti]

"AT&T said it would be too expensive to upgrade its network without help from Netflix and other bandwidth-heavy services blah blah the same old lies." FTFY

Hey AT&T, with the cost of bandwidth plummeting since forever, where exactly DO all your non-plunging revenues go?

 

[williace]

I live in Northern Virginia and I've had FIOS for about five years. I've never had a problem with Netflix working on any device. I have their mid tier internet service along with TV and DVR. It's not like I don't stream much either. I would say that I average a couple of GBs a day of streaming alone. I also have a Slingbox that family members connect to daily.

I wouldn't be surprised if they based their traffic shaping off of some sort of formula that takes into account how much money you spend on their services.

 

[valkyriebiker]

MonkeyPaw[/url]":3pec06bq]My big complaint with AT&T is their terrible pricing. If I didn't call them and complain, I'd be paying $41/mo for 1.5mbps. That's just absurd.

No surprise there. AT&T happily collected rent on phones long after the 1982 breakup with little (any?) direct word to their subscribers that it was no longer required. Even as late as the 2000s, elderly people (who didn't follow the news) were still paying rent to leasing agents that bought out AT&Ts interest. Rather than just simply quit collecting rent and notify their customers, AT&T sold that book of business. Pathetic.

 

[dizk0]

eco_nl[/url]":38pxi2gi]How are you enjoying capitalism and free markets? Over here in the commie EU it just works...

Big talk about being the greatest country in the world meanwhile get screwed by isp, telco, govt, sued out of existance by trolls and your representative stands there filling his pockets.

Gotta love all that freedom ;-)

Yet another symptom of an empire in decline. As this would be the Sunset phase of the Golden Age of Western Civilization, it would be possible to draw an analogy to other fallen empires from history.
How well tolerated were interruptions to entertainment provided to Athenians and Romans? Noone likes taking a look at the decline they should have identified and arrested earlier. I guess the distractions have been well engineered.

Wake up, America. This Golden Age (ca. 1945-) probably only has another 10 or so years left in it, until its China calling the shots. We *really* don't want that.

 

[fellow_traveler]

AT&T shouldn't have to pay to improve its own infrastructure, Cicconi argued.

Right, they should be able to use the same crappy equipment they've been using for the last hundred years whille continuously raising their prices.

 

[appleseed]

FYI to help the discussion along, AT&T as it was is no more. It is in name alone. The company here named Southwestern Bell acquired them after they first sold their mobile business to Cingular, and then later acquired them.

So if you want to point blame at the right entity it should go to Southwestern Bell, and their fucked up customer screwing business practices.

Wiki has to say:
"Southwestern Bell was one of the companies created by the breakup of AT&T. It wasn't long before the company started a series of acquisitions. This includes the 1987 acquisition of Metromedia mobile business, and the acquisition of several cable companies in the early 1990s. In the later half of the 1990s, the company acquired several other telecommunications companies, including some baby bells, while selling its cable business. During this time, the company changed its name to SBC Communications. By 1998, the company was in the top 15 of the Fortune 500, and by 1999 the company was part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

In 2005, SBC purchased AT&T for $16 billion. After this purchase, SBC adopted the AT&T name and brand. The original 1885 AT&T still exists as the long-distance phone subsidiary of this company. Today, the current AT&T owns 11 of the original 24 Bell System companies."

 

[Voight-Kampff]

That's not how AT&T Senior VP Jim Cicconi sees it. He called Netflix's demands "arrogant," writing that "we can all accept the fact that business service costs are ultimately borne by consumers." AT&T shouldn't have to pay to improve its own infrastructure, Cicconi argued.

Quite right, quite right!

Why, I have half a mind to follow his lead and refuse to buy gas for my car in order to get to my work. Since my work is demanding I come to their facilities, obviously they need to bear the cost of making sure my car can make it there every day by buying my gasoline.

Or does that logic not apply to us plebs?

 

[ars human]

If the big ISPs make deals with Netflix, what about the small ISPs? Will they get a deal with Netflix too? Maybe not and then they alone would be forced to pass on the data costs to their customers, and that'd probably be fine with the big ISPs (who probably also have clout with 'regulators').

To preserve ISP competition, I think all ISPs should pass on the cost of carrying traffic (any traffic) to their customers.

Special deals between big ISPs and Netflix are a threat to ISP competition, leading to ISP mega-corp regional monopolies.

Regulators should do their job.

 

[Jason Honingford]

I never get above standard definition anymore with Netflix on FIOS.

 

[robert.walter]

"To say that regulators must decide between increasing costs on companies like Netflix or raising prices on consumers is to present a false choice," Fung wrote. "Rising demand is a fact of the industry. Meeting that demand is what network operators are built to do."

Re the quote above, if the facts of this article are correct, then:

1. ATT presented a Hobson's choice to Netflix to chose either death by strangulation of bandwidth or death by exsanguation of profit margin.

2. These networks are only built to maximize, generate and maintain profit margins.

 

[zipperfoot]

eco_nl[/url]":1q7kky27]How are you enjoying capitalism and free markets? Over here in the commie EU it just works...

Big talk about being the greatest country in the world meanwhile get screwed by isp, telco, govt, sued out of existance by trolls and your representative stands there filling his pockets.

Gotta love all that freedom ;-)

I have found europeans are more involved in politics than americans.

Its pathetic that we Americans put up with large greedy companies with billions of dollars in profits bickering about costs.

The only ones who suffer are the subscribers. Unfortunately it takes a lot of effort for the average fat assed american to put the beer down, get out of the lazy boy, and contact your congressman and demand action.

 

[downsideup]

If ISPs, like Verizon and AT&T, want to do business in the modern world, they're going to have upgrade their infrastructure on their own dime. It is fallacy for them to expect to reap all the benefits (revenue), but bear none of the responsibility (upgrades). If this means they must shift a few billion dollars from Marketing or Data Collection/Retention into infrastructure improvements, that is their price to pay. The consumer already pays.

As Internet Service Providers, they need to do one thing and do it well: provide access services. And since they aren't providing "service" well to begin with, I doubt they're truly capable of juggling service and [their own] competing content with any semblance of efficiency.


edits for clarity.

 

[kjohndoe]

What changed in September of last year and who made the change to impact customers across multiple ISPs?

 

[Bengie25]

kjohndoe[/url]":z3lfjv2r]What changed in September of last year and who made the change to impact customers across multiple ISPs?

First off, that doesn't show "Several" ISPs, it shows the DSL portion of Verizon and AT&T getting slower, but not FIOS.

Second, the speed drop didn't happen in September, but after, AKA October.
Oct 2013 had The Walking Dead (season 3) released on Netflix

The problem is demand skyrocketed for Netflix and AT&T and Verizon DSL could not handle the load.

 

[Chemical Tribe]

Bengie25[/url]":3ku91qjr]

kjohndoe[/url]":3ku91qjr]What changed in September of last year and who made the change to impact customers across multiple ISPs?

First off, that doesn't show "Several" ISPs, it shows the DSL portion of Verizon and AT&T getting slower, but not FIOS.

Second, the speed drop didn't happen in September, but after, AKA October.
Oct 2013 had The Walking Dead (season 3) released on Netflix

The problem is demand skyrocketed for Netflix and AT&T and Verizon DSL could not handle the load.

And then netflix started offering super hd. That made things much worse.

 

[Gooberslot]

As much as I hate Cox I'm happy to see they're not on the list of ISPs trying to double dip... yet.

 

[crustytheclown]

eco_nl[/url]":1ur6ufsr]How are you enjoying capitalism and free markets? Over here in the commie EU it just works...
Big talk about being the greatest country in the world meanwhile get screwed by isp, telco, govt, sued out of existance by trolls and your representative stands there filling his pockets.
Gotta love all that freedom ;-)

The Commies have set this up. Bad/Over-regulation has created institutionalized monopolies and then the regulators get bought and controlled by crony capitalists. If utilities were free market we would not have this problem. People do not really want multiple power lines from competing power companies in their neighborhood. People do not want to see their telephone poles layered with AT&T, Comcast, Google fiber, etc.

People are scared of things that do not have to be. Under free market, you can have choice of a power company or solar. Cable networks can be buried fiber to community nodes. There is money to be made for good ISPs who provide what their customers want.

 

[dlux]

AreWeThereYeti[/url]":1miid9t0]Hey AT&T, with the cost of bandwidth plummeting since forever, where exactly DO all your non-plunging revenues go?

Ahoy there, losers!

 

[papadage]

They should pull the common carrier pin from the regulatory grenade and be done with it.

 

[ReddyKilowatt]

dsparil[/url]":2043zw5d]

"Why is Netflix so unreliable?" That's one of the most common questions asked by Internet users today.

That also has a simple answer. Cogent was not delivering the service that Netflix was paying for, sending traffic to subscribers at high speed. The issue has always been with Cogent. From an article I link to further down, "To date, Cogent has had peering disputes with AOL, Teleglobe, France Telecom, Level 3, TeliaSonera, Sprint-Nextel and Verizon".

On any network, AppleTVs get their Netflix stream via Level 3 or Limelight and there have never been any issues. I only watch Netflix on my AppleTV, and despite having Comcast as my ISP, I have always had excellent video quality and uninterrupted streaming.

This article has very good information on the deal that Netflix made with Comcast. It also disputes the $0.01/GB number given by Wedbush on the grounds that the type of deal Netflix made is generally charged by throughput rather than data size. The article also estimates using publicly available information that Netflix is paying $18m per year. The Wedbush derived numbers are basically pulled out of thin air.

Actually, what the article (correctly) assumes is that Comcast is getting into the Tier 1 network business, at least for its customers. The author doesn't come right out and say it, but it's strongly implied. This, along with the Apple/Comcast streaming deal reported earlier this week, show that Comcast wants to manage bandwidth for the entire path, or at least as much as possible. It is an interesting approach. If it works, great for them (but ultimately bad for new players). Good or bad for customers? Depends on what the customer wants. In theory the masses will be happy because their online video, Google and Facebook will load quickly. Ars Technica? Well, Condé Nast might be big enough to do a deal, but maybe not. Of course traditional Web traffic isn't really the driver of these deals, it's video.

 

[anavrintobin]

Wow, it's amazing this is all happening at all.

Where is the competition? Where I live, if one ISP started acting like this, everyone would jump ship to another.

I live in a smallish town and have at least 30 different ISP's to choose from. Currently on an 80mpbs fibre line with no D/L caps and no Netflix throttling. It costs the equivalent of $60 a month but between my flatmate and I, that's fine.

18 months ago, it was only a 40mbps line.....they gave everyone a free upgrade to 80mbps because.....competition. There's a good chance It's going up to 120mbps soonish. For the same price i'm paying now.

It's a funny kind of capitalism you have with your ISP's.

I wish you all luck.