Started By
Message

Netflix warns it will provoke customer protest if ISPs violate net neutrality

Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:32 pm
Posted by stendulkar
Member since Aug 2012
767 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:32 pm
quote:

Last week, a federal court struck down the FCC's net neutrality rules — and Netflix took notice. "Unfortunately, Verizon successfully challenged the US net neutrality rules," Netflix writes in its shareholder letter. "In principle, a domestic ISP now can legally impede the video streams that members request from Netflix, degrading the experience we jointly provide."

In a worst-case scenario, Netflix imagines a situation in which it would have to pay fees to ISPs to stop that degradation, but it sounds like the company wouldn't just sit back and let that situation happen. "Were this draconian scenario to unfold with some ISP," Netflix writes, "we would vigorously protest and encourage our members to demand the open Internet they are paying their ISP to deliver."

However, the company doesn't see that as a very likely outcome. The company feels that ISPs are likely to avoid this "consumer-unfriendly path of discrimination" because of "broad public support" for net neutrality — and because the carriers and ISPs "don't want to galvanize government action." Additionally, Netflix seems very aware of its position as a potential friend of the ISPs — it says that high-quality video streams (like ones that Netflix provides) are a driver of the more expensive broadband plans.

That said, Netflix will definitely be keeping an eye on how ISPs respond to the new net neutrality landscape. "In the long-term, we think Netflix and consumers are best served by strong network neutrality across all networks, including wireless," Netflix writes. If "some aggressive ISPs start impeding specific data flows," however, Netflix says more regulation will be needed — and it has a big userbase that would certainly make some noise if their video experience starts getting worse.

LINK
Posted by TH3 LSU TIG3R
Member since Dec 2012
693 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:35 pm to
Federal courts fricking up
Posted by wildtigercat93
Member since Jul 2011
112232 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:36 pm to
Someone put that in english for me
Posted by droman225
HTown by way of BR
Member since Aug 2011
13383 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:38 pm to
quote:

Someone put that in english for me



What he said
Posted by GEAUXmedic
Premium Member
Member since Nov 2011
41598 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:38 pm to
quote:

Someone put that in english for me


The government opened it up so ISP's can block certain sites from being able to be opened by consumers. They could then use this to charge sites like netflix to be allowed to stream on their networks.
Posted by ClientNumber9
Member since Feb 2009
9313 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:39 pm to
quote:

Someone put that in english for me


This. I feel like I should be spun up here but I can't commit fully until this gets explained.
Posted by ClientNumber9
Member since Feb 2009
9313 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:40 pm to
quote:

The government opened it up so ISP's can block certain sites from being able to be opened by consumers. They could then use this to charge sites like netflix to be allowed to stream on their networks.


I see. So this is complete bullshite. In other words, the consumer gets double-tapped for watching streaming video- by the ISP then by Netflix (because as a result, Netflix will pass the cost off to the customer).
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28703 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:41 pm to
quote:

Someone put that in english for me

Net Neutrality is a "good thing". It means that ISPs can't discriminate by which websites it wants to deliver to you quickly. By eliminating Net Neutrality rules, the door has opened for ISPs to slow down whichever sites they want for their users, and force those sites to pay them in order to speed them up. This means that your ISP (possibly a cable company) could slow down Netflix streaming for you, so that their own video on demand services seem more attractive, for example.
Posted by Motorboat
At the camp
Member since Oct 2007
22666 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:55 pm to
I think uverse does this at times because my netflix is sometimes hd and sometimes not.
Posted by biscuitsngravy
Tejas, north America
Member since Jan 2011
2999 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 6:03 pm to
Just first battle in a big war. Only a matter of time before cable service is unbundled and people pay for only channels they want or on demand. Trying to block access to make people but your cable service will only backfire. Roku, google fiber the way of the future. People ain't gonna pay 170 for espn and a bunch of crap channels.
Posted by Ruxin
Cypress, TX
Member since Nov 2012
1071 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 6:08 pm to
quote:

espn


quote:

crap channels


No need to separate these two. They belong together.
Posted by TheOcean
#honeyfriedchicken
Member since Aug 2004
42453 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 6:10 pm to
Netflix + youtube account for 50% of internet traffic, yet they don't want to shell out more money for what they use.
Posted by Honkus
Member since Aug 2005
51046 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 6:15 pm to
Bye bye torrents
Posted by jcole4lsu
The Kwisatz Haderach
Member since Nov 2007
30922 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 6:16 pm to
quote:

Netflix + youtube account for 50% of internet traffic, yet they don't want to shell out more money for what they use.

They don't "use" it, customers do. And it doesn't matter if 99% of traffic came from a single site, it's not the isps business where you surf as long as you are paying your bill.
Isps are just mad people are cutting the cord to their shitty overpriced tv packages.
Posted by Cs
Member since Aug 2008
10464 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 6:24 pm to
quote:

Isps are just mad people are cutting the cord to their shitty overpriced tv packages.


This.

Cable TV is an archaic entertainment paradigm, and the subscription numbers reflect that for most cable companies. People are dropping cable completely.

However, for most individuals, their ISP is also their cable provider (Cox, Time Warner, Comcast, etc).

What if these cable companies had the ability to degrade one's online experience, at least contextually? They now have the legal authority to "throttle" or encumber a user's access to certain sites. If video form Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, or Hulu is continually buffering and freezing, what is the user more likely to do - continue sitting there through that dreadful experience, or switch to something like cable or pay per view?

This post was edited on 1/22/14 at 6:25 pm
Posted by ChuckM
Lafayette
Member since Dec 2006
1645 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 7:54 pm to
quote:

Last week, a federal court struck down the FCC's net neutrality rules


This is the part that I don't understand. For the most part, it seems as though the FCC operates a lot like the IRS, with almost complete impunity. So Im surprised that anyone, regardless of size, is actually allowed to sue the FCC, much less have a court overturn the FCC's law. I don't see how a federal appeals court has jurisdiction over the FCC's rules.

Any attorney care to elaborate?

Posted by UpToPar
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2008
22151 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 8:00 pm to
My netflix streams really slow on weekends. I'm just going to assume this is the result.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28703 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 10:55 pm to
quote:

Netflix + youtube account for 50% of internet traffic, yet they don't want to shell out more money for what they use.

They already do. They pay a ton on their end for upstream bandwidth. Why should they also have to pay bribes to ISPs in order for their customers to get what is already paid for both coming and going?
Posted by econ85
Member since Nov 2012
572 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 10:59 pm to
Basically, the ruling means this can now be a reality:


Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
98132 posts
Posted on 1/22/14 at 11:13 pm to
quote:

They don't "use" it, customers do. And it doesn't matter if 99% of traffic came from a single site, it's not the isps business where you surf as long as you are paying your bill. Isps are just mad people are cutting the cord to their shitty overpriced tv packages.


This, and people are too locked into their ideology to realize it. They've bought the propaganda that net neutrality is somehow "anti-freedom." The only freedom it hinders is the freedom of corporations to run roughshod over consumers.

Without net neutrality, there's nothing to stop your ISP from partnering with 247 or Scout, and blocking your access to TD. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram