Comcast Attacks Netflix

[cal04]

by Forrest Brown
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/29/924114/-BREAKING:-Comcast-Attacks-Netflix

BREAKING NEWS:
The New York Times just reported that Comcast will block Netflix unless a new fee is paid to Comcast -- so Netflix's price goes up and people use Comcast's video service instead.
(http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/netflix-partner-says-comcast-toll-threatens-online-video-delivery/)

This outrageous abuse of power by Comcast comes on the very week that President Obama's FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will announce whether he'll fulfill Obama's promise to protect the open Internet and Net Neutrality -- which would prevent this type of corporate abuse.

The FCC needs to hear from us now, before the chairman's big announcement this week.

Sign our message to the FCC: "Don't let Comcast block Netflix or other online innovators for their own profit! Support the strongest Net Neutrality protections possible -- and keep Obama's promise." Click here to sign.

According to the New York Times, it all started on November 19th when Comcast demanded that Level 3 Communications, "a central partner in the Netflix online movie service", pay a new fee or risk Netflix users suffering service "disruptions." Forcing Netflix, a direct competitor to Comcast's own online video service, to pay higher fees is exhibit A of what corporations will do without strong Net Neutrality protections.

What else could Comcast do if the FCC doesn't protect Net Neutrality?

Internet providers like Comcast can drive their financial competitors (or political opponents) out of business by charging them more, for no good reason -- exactly what's happening right now.

For instance, Comcast could block or degrade iTunes, which competes with Comcast's own online music store.

Worse, the FCC will soon decide whether to allow Comcast to buy NBC! Can you imagine what Comcast will do to block customers from getting video from ABC, CBS, and other media outlets? This is way more serious than just movies -- the FCC's decision impacts pretty much everything.

Tell the FCC to stop Comcast's abuse of power and protect the open Internet.Sign our emergency petition.
http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/petition_netflix/?source=dkos

[slay]

1. Net Neutrality is far more important than most people think

NOVEMBER 29TH, 2010

U.S. Government Seizes 82 Websites: A Glimpse at the Draconian Future of Copyright Enforcement?

Legal Analysis by Corynne McSherry

Over the past few days, the U.S. Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and nine U.S. Attorneys’ Offices seized 82 domain names of websites they claim were engaged in the sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and illegal copyrighted works.

Setting aside the due process concerns inherent in seizing any website without notice or appropriate recourse for the owner, it appears that the "raid" has swept up several sites that are hardly in the business of willful copyright infringement. For example, the the list of targets included OnSmash.com and RapGodfathers.com. Both sites are dedicated to promoting rap and hiphop, showcasing new artists and helping fans connect and share information about the music they love. According to the owners, they regularly and expeditiously process copyright infringement notices and take down links as appropriate. Indeed, OnSmash says the labels themselves are often the source of the links OnSmash makes available. In other words, they try to play by the rules. Moreover, the sites are not simply collections of links; rather, they provide a wide array of information and forums for speech, all of which was rendered inaccessible by the seizure.

This type of seizure is not unprecedented, but we haven’t seen it happen on such a broad scale before. This kind of mass action raises at least three concerns:

First, these seizures may be just a short preview of the kind of overreaching enforcement we’ll see if the Congress passes the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). That bill, which was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov 18, gives the government dramatic new copyright enforcement powers, in particular the ability to make entire websites disappear from the Internet if infringement, or even links to infringement, are deemed to be "central" to the purpose of the site. Rather than just targeting files that actually infringe copyright law, COICA’s "nuclear-option" design has the government blacklisting entire sites out of the domain name system — a reckless scheme that will undermine global Internet infrastructure and censor legitimate online speech. As we’ve noted, one of the most pernicious effects of COICA is likely to be just what we’ve seen here: the takedown of legitimate speech.

more:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/us-government-seizes-82-websites-draconian-future

[glinda]

2. signed

[onehandle]

3. The administration needs to do something about Comcast. They're out of hand. nt

[defendandprotect]

6. Obama administration, itself, is "out of hand" -- and evidently we're expecting millionaires and

multi-millionaires in Congress to save us from the elites?

We know we need CHANGE but we have to get more realistic about where

we're likely to get it -- and where not!!

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

92. I agree they are out of hand. I'm lucky that I have the option of FIOS.

In the end though, I think wireless networks are where it's going to to be. 4G is almost there. With a good signal you could have your phone serve as a wifi hot spot for your house or anywhere else. Think about that. Every mobile device will allow the networking of everything around it. Wires are dying. You could almost take a device and plan like this http://now.sprint.com/firsts/evo4g/#/plans/ and use it as your families only internet access. I'm a gamer and latency even looks good. This technology is almost there and affordable. Bye Bye cable.

[Veilex]

104. Thats not quite how it works...

I used to do tech support for a cell phone company and I can tell you, even if you don’t do cable directly, you'll still be using their wires for a good portion of your "wireless" access. Cell towers operate largely off existing cable wires... with the exception of those that operate off of optical line. This is often why roaming charges are so high...cell phone companies have to pay for the privilege of using cables and wires they don’t own. This is a gross over simplification, but you get the gist of the idea.

[sakabatou]

4. FUCK COMCAST!

[shanti]

53. got that right!

:thumbsup: they are the devil.

[defendandprotect]

5. Comcast is vile... and imagine when they own NBC what will be going on!!!

Comcast also makes $500 million or more every year from internet pornography!!!

Just the influence we want to have on national broadcasting!!!

:eyes:

[DesertFlower]

7. signed and posted on my facebook page.

[Swamp Rat]

8. k&r

[Kablooie]

9. And in many areas of the country the cable companies are monopolies.

Where I live the only fast internet option and cable TV option is Charter.
We don't have DSL available.
Heck, we don't even get an ATT cell phone signal.

And I don't live out in the country.
I live in a community in the Los Angeles area.

If there is no competition, of course companies can get away with this sort of crap.
What we really need is a cable TV / internet system like they have in most other countries.
The wires belong to one company but any company can use them.
That way you always have several choices so the companies have to compete for your dollars,
like they are supposed to.

[Seedersandleechers]

19. In the UK

Cable and high speed internet runs about 8.50 pounds a month. I couldn't believe it until I saw the bill!!!

[Kablooie]

65. Whoa! I pay around 60$ a month just for internet.

Basic price is $44
Internet Modem is $5
and I pay $10 extra for a faster speed line because we use up to 4 computers at the same time in our house.

[mrmpa]

108. 8.5 pounds is $13.29

[paulkienitz]

10. Argh I was just watching Netflix over Comcast ten minutes ago

...I kinda hate Comcast already, but the alternatives are mighty narrow and quite possibly just as abusive.

[cal04]

11. Comcast sparks US net neutrality row

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/11/30/244258/Comcast-sparks-US-net-neutrality-row.htm


US internet network operator Level 3 has accused cable firm Comcast of introducing charges for carrying internet movies and other traffic.

Level 3 said Comcast is in effect "putting up a toll booth" on its broadband networks so that it can set the price for online content that competes with its own services.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. I don't like Comcast but I will not get on this thread's pro theft

jig, just sorry. Net Neutrality is a good issue, but I see people here who also think they have the right to steal from others and I do not back you guys taking that which is mine for yourselves, understand? If you are bothered by that, forward me your cards, pin numbers, keys to your house and you can then play bit torrent theft all you want, how's that?
If you care about net neutrality, you should keep the issue separate from those who just want to steal art and entertainments.
Not signing anything that is against fair compensation for artists in any way, shape or form. Bit torrent that, art haters. Thieves. All the 'bit torrent' thieves I know are rich, piggish 'I want it all now' types. No sympathy at all for them. None.

[no limit]

13. What in the world are you talking about? Who here is saying anything about stealing?

Netflix is a legitimate service.

And if someone is breaking the law guess what? You can go after them legally.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

22. i think this is in response to SLAY above

mentioning the seizure of the torrent sites...

sP

[surrealAmerican]

14. You are apparently unfamiliar with Netflix.

They are not a bit torrent service, and do not violate copyright laws.

[Starry Messenger]

16. Netflix is a rental service.

It's $20 a month. You watch online, but it doesn't download "for keeps".

[piratefish08]

21. nope - Netflix is $7.99 for their 'online' option.

more if you actually ship dvd's bak and forth.

[Starry Messenger]

34. I do both, so it's $20

Forgot they had the other options.

[Rebubula]

17. Whoosh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Awesome job completely misunderstanding the issue.

[elleng]

18. Netflix doesn't steal.

Some do.
Competition must be promoted.

[PeaceNikki]

23. lolz

[Lucian]

47. I have no idea what you said in your incoherent rambling...

but downloading music off the internet is not theft. Charging outstanding fees to use a competitor's video service IS theft.

And you're okay with that?

[gaijinlaw]

97. Huh?

Where the hell did that come from? Nobody said anything about stealing anything.

[donheld]

103. Are you really that out of the loop?

:shrug:

[elleng]

15. DONE

[BREMPRO]

20. once again, this is not a free markeplace where the best product or service wins

but one where the company that controls access can block it's competitor to take market share. This is the kind of corporate high tech capitalist fascism we have been living with. Time for some real free markets. Net Neutrality is going to be challenged and we have to be ready for a fight.

I'm a Comcast subscriber and love Netflix- this is a direct attack on my freedom of choice in the marketplace. If Comcast had a better service, i might consider it, but instead they attack Neflix with the threat of a "tariff" for using their network simply so they can gain marketshare with their service. That's not a free market, not net neutrality.

signed the petition- already 214% of goal- post it and pass it on!

[cbdo2007]

24. Great, everybody out there drop Comcast. I get fast enough speeds and

never have a problem with AT&T dsl.

[PeaceNikki]

25. Not everyone has an option.

Which is a whole nother issue.

[Eddie Haskell]

28. Can't get DSL in my area.

My choice's are cable or too slow to consider.

[sarcasmo]

31. If AT&T was offered in my area we would drop Comcast in a heartbeat.

[shanti]

54. at&t sucks too

i have comcast internet (price gouging mf'ers!), but am seriously considering at&t, especially now that my income is going way down next year due to retirement. i don't need blazing fast speed anyway.

[cbdo2007]

85. I specifically asked AT&T if they would ever limit download speed or amount

when I signed up and they said no. Sure I don't get comcast speeds of up to 15 mb/s but I usually get greater than 3 mb/s which is fast enough for moving streaming, etc. I've never had a Netflix movie lock up for speed problems, or any other speed problems that I would notice because I don't really do "downloading" but my wife and I stream at least a couple of hours of movies/tv shows per day.

[obxhead]

78. I dream of the day where I have a choice beyond

Hughes Net or Dial Up :(

[TroubleMan]

96. Can't - AT&T dsl is way too slow, and there's no UVerse or Fios here.

Comcast is the only provider here than can give me 6mbps or more.

Wish I could, but I can't, and neither can most people in my area (West Palm Beach). I've been clamoring for FIOS, because Uverse is sort of a rip-off (limited bandwidth and it's not FTTH). However, Verizon says they have no plans at all to come down here, and Uverse is only in a couple of neighborhoods.

If FIOS was available here, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

[Eddie Haskell]

26. Solution: keep Comcast out of content

If they're providing content, they should compete as a separate company subject to the same fees.

[myrna minx]

27. K&R n/t

[sarcasmo]

29. The NBC/Comcast merger needs to stop but our Corporate Politicians love the merger.

[Romulox]

30. Bandwidth costs money. If Netflix wants to use bandwidth, it should pay for it.

Just like I, a user, must. :hi:

[PeaceNikki]

32. Um.... the user is using the bandwidth when they stream Netflix.

They're already paying for the bandwidth. Comcast is trying to dictate how the user uses it.

[Romulox]

35. Right. But those users include people without Netflix accounts.

To the extent that Netflix dominates (or even taxes) the infrastructure, ALL Comcast users (even the non-Netflix subscribers) will be required to either suffer loss of bandwidth for other applications, or (more realistically) the additional expense associated with rolling out addition infrastructure to increase bandwidth.

So again, why should Comcast subscribers subsidize Netflix, which is a for-profit company? :hi:

[Celebration]

36. The point is

That if they want to charge CUSTOMERS directly for the use of bandwidth, that possibly makes sense.

If they try to control it on the other end, through the content providers, that opens itself up to all kinds of abuse........it is anti-competitive, because it can lead to favoritism for their own offerings, as they are not going to tax themselves.

Already Comcast has limits on how much bandwidth customers can use.

[BzaDem]

37. "So again, why should Comcast subscribers subsidize Netflix, which is a for-profit company?"

This has nothing to do with subsidizing Netflix. It is the USERS bandwidth that is at issue here -- not Netflix.

If Comcast wanted to charge USERS that use excessive bandwidth in a neutral manner (not discriminating based upon content), that would be one thing. But that is not what Comcast is proposing. Comcast is saying that if users use excessive bandwidth on service A, that is OK, but if they use excessive bandwidth on service B, that is not OK.

If we followed your argument, Comcast (essentially a monopoly in many areas) could simply ban Democratic Underground access for all its customers.

[Romulox]

39. A subsidy to Netflix users amounts to a subsidy to Netflix-it defrays the actual cost of the service

allowing Netflix to be more competitive (and therefore more successful) than it would otherwise be if users had to pay the full cost of using the service.

"Comcast is saying that if users use excessive bandwidth on service A, that is OK, but if they use excessive bandwidth on service B, that is not OK."

That's precisely what they do now with premium television content!

"If we followed your argument, Comcast (essentially a monopoly in many areas) could simply ban Democratic Underground access for all its customers."

I haven't really made an argument, other than that I think there are some holes in the "net neutrality" theory. Simply put--there cannot be a law that saws one company must provide unlimited bandwidth to another for profit company, irrespective of cost. Such a law cannot be put into practice!

So the first principle has to be that there has to be some limit to bandwidth allocated for streaming films. From there, we have to figure out a fair way to allocate that finite resource. That's based on the reality of the scarcity of bandwidth, not Comcast's machinations.

[BzaDem]

60. "Such a law cannot be put into practice!" Actually, I think it is more likely than not that such a

law WILL be put into practice, over the complaints of you and others.

"So the first principle has to be that there has to be some limit to bandwidth allocated for streaming films."

Yeah. Comcast can charge its users for bandwidth, independent of the source/destination of the bandwidth. It can expose its users to the true cost of their data usage (whether it is a streaming film or downloading of software or any other source). Next.

"That's precisely what they do now with premium television content!"

So? Something is OK on one medium because it is OK on another medium? We shouldn't regulate one medium because we don't regulate another medium in the same way?

"A subsidy to Netflix users amounts to a subsidy to Netflix-it defrays the actual cost of the service"

Comcast can freely decide to not subsidize Netflix users' bandwidth usage by charging Netflix users for their bandwidth usage, and allowing users to decide what to do with the bandwidth they pay for.

[GOTV]

74. You've got it backwards. Netflix doesn't use comcast's bandwidth, only Comcast customers do ...

... Netflix pays its bandwidth providers and You and I pay for ours. Everyone pays and all bandwidth is paid for.

Comcast shouldn't get to charge people who are not comcast customers.

[Romulox]

83. The distinction is academic. Netflix's profits rely on moving large chunks of data over

Comcast's network.

[Gore1FL]

93. Comcast profits rely on having data to move over their network

If Comcast has bandwidth problems, they need to accommodate that somehow. One of those options should not be specifically ruling out Netflix or any other competitor in a way that creates a monopoly.

It would be like AT&T no longer accepting cell calls from Verizon unless Verizon paid more than anyone else.

[GOTV]

105. Irrelevant. What's relevant is that Netflix is not a Comcast customer.

My profits rely on many things. My profits are hurt if my customers lose their jobs - that doesn't give their bosses the right to bill me for their continued employment. My profits are hurt if my customers die from easily preventable diseases - that doesn't mean their doctors have a right to a portion of my profits.

It's equally silly for Comcast to demand some of Netflix's profits because their customers want to use Netflix's services. This is exactly what net neutrality is about.

You've got it backwards.

[PeaceNikki]

38. That's not even what it's about.

It's about broadband providers, like Comcast, whom have their own video on demand services to peddle.

Level 3 believes Comcast's current position violates the spirit and letter of the FCC's proposed Internet Policy principles and other regulations and statutes, as well as Comcast's previous public statements about favoring an open Internet. While the network neutrality debate in Washington has focused on what actions a broadband access provider might take to filter, prioritize or manage content requested by its subscribers, Comcast's decision goes well beyond this. With this action, Comcast is preventing competing content from ever being delivered to Comcast's subscribers at all, unless Comcast's unilaterally-determined toll is paid - even though Comcast's subscribers requested the content. With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed' Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content.

I pay $X per month for Ymbps of bandwidth, I should be able to run my connection at Ymbps 24/7 - without any regard to WHAT that traffic is. Likewise with content providers and every stop in the middle.

So it's not fair that one company has thousands of users necessitating the very bandwidth you're trying to sell, thus giving you a reason to fucking exist?

I fail to see how that maintains any semblance of logical cohesion in this universe.

Fuck off, Comcast.

[Romulox]

40. Like most things, it's about $$$--your whole post is about that~!

"I pay $X per month for Ymbps of bandwidth, I should be able to run my connection at Ymbps 24/7 - without any regard to WHAT that traffic is."

If you PAY for a service like that, fine. But that's not what this is about. It's about your putative right to run your internet connect 24/7 at Ymbps while your neighbor, who uses 1/1000 of that, is required to defray a part of that cost.

[PeaceNikki]

41. lolz

:rofl:

[Romulox]

43. Sigh. Dupe--no more posting using the Magic Trackpad!

:shrug:

[Romulox]

44. Powerful stuff. nt

[PeaceNikki]

46. Your argument would make sense IF Comcast gave a shit about my neighbor

and were trying to offer more package offerings based on usage. But that's not what's happening.

This sets a scary precedent. If Comcast can charge an extra fee to Level 3 for hosting Netflix content, it could (and probably will at some point try to) charge Google to stream YouTube movies or Apple to broadcast iTunes content. Because Comcast owns the last mile, they hold the keys.

A bit is a bit is a bit, and eight of them is a byte. They sell you 50 mbps service but say you can only use it so much. It is like giving a fire hose to a fireman but telling him you can only use 5000 gallons a month with it. Providers keep advertising faster and faster speeds and promoting how we can use it to download movies and music so much faster. Yup, and hit our quota that much faster too. I completely support Net Neutrality, if you don't want a large company's business then don't sell it to them.

[PeaceNikki]

51. In addition, Comcast is Breaking Anti-Trust Laws

The idea behind anti-trust laws is to prevent monopolies from becoming fascist dictators. In this case, Comcast is both the owner of distribution (cable lines) and content. If Comcast is allowed to stiff arm Level 3, they will be using their distribution business to cripple competitors in the content arena.

[Romulox]

55. That's a much better argument, imo, than the previous one.

If we as a society want to subsidize providers like Netflix to promote a competitive environment in the internet realm, that's one thing. The "fairness" type arguments fall flat as to a for-profit entity such as Netflix, however--at that point we are merely discussing how profits will be distributed as between two for-profit entities.

[BzaDem]

62. This isn't about subsidizing Netflix. Netflix ALREADY pays a huge amount for its own bandwidth.

This is about high bandwidth users being subsidized by low bandwidth users. If Comcast doesn't like that, they can charge high bandwidth users more and low bandwidth users less. Easy. It is Comcast's choice (and Comcast's choice alone) to charge all users the same amount, and they could change that tomorrow if they wanted to.

You are conflating two COMPLETELY separate issues -- the cost/amount of bandwidth and the destination of bandwidth.

"at that point we are merely discussing how profits will be distributed as between two for-profit entities"

No, we're really not. We're discussing whether Internet service providers will have the right to dictate to customers what content they will be allowed to use. The "lots of bandwidth" issue is just an irrelevant diversion.

[Romulox]

68. Thank you! : "This is about high bandwidth users being subsidized by low bandwidth users."

"If Comcast doesn't like that, they can charge high bandwidth users more and low bandwidth users less. Easy. It is Comcast's choice (and Comcast's choice alone) to charge all users the same amount, and they could change that tomorrow if they wanted to."

Or they could limit traffic to bandwidth eating services like Netflix streaming videos. :shrug:

"You are conflating two COMPLETELY separate issues -- the cost/amount of bandwidth and the destination of bandwidth."

To the extent that we are arguing about the allocation of resources, they are one in the same.

"We're discussing whether Internet service providers will have the right to dictate to customers what content they will be allowed to use. The 'lots of bandwidth' issue is just an irrelevant diversion."

Um, your first sentence to this post is, "This is about high bandwidth users being subsidized by low bandwidth users." :wtf:

[BzaDem]

69. "Or they could limit traffic to bandwidth eating services like Netflix streaming videos."

Not if we pass a regulation making that illegal. Which doesn't even require Congress under the existing regulatory framework.

All it takes is a regulation (or law) and then boom. Comcast no longer has the ability to do this, whether they like it or not. They can certainly charge users who use bandwidth, but they won't be able to tell users what they are allowed to do with the bandwidth they pay for.

If you are simply arguing that under current law, they are able to block or limit Netflix, then sure. That is true. But I don't think the status quo's legal reality is what most people are arguing about. They are arguing in favor of changing the law to make your proposal illegal.

[Romulox]

80. Right. I don't think the case has been made vis a vis Netflix that "fairness" requires

no limits to amount of network traffic one for-profit entity may command on another for-profit entity's network.

It's not that I don't understand what's at stake; it's that I don't think "fairness" has anything to do with it.

[BzaDem]

81. Do you at least see why others think "fairness" has EVERYTHING to do with it?

There is a content-neutral way to deal with excessive traffic. Do you see why others believe that there is a problem with content-specific action (as opposed to content-neutral action)?

To me, any law or regulatory scheme that would allow a company to limit traffic to, say, certain political websites, under the guise of "traffic management" is not only unfair -- it is a tremendous curtailment of the principles free speech (even if it is not legally violating the first amendment). The distinction between a flexible medium like the Internet and a rigid, one-dimensional medium like TV seem apparent.

[Romulox]

82. I see the potential for abuse. But I think the Netflix issue is about commerce, not speech.

I'm not arguing that the status quo is ideal, or that the market should ultimately decide--simply that "net neutrality", framed by the current debate, seems to refer to the rights of corporations to move content across others' networks, rather than individuals rights to an open internet.

[BzaDem]

86. Netflix is already paying for what it sends.

This is about users having the ability to pay to receive the bytes.

If net neutrality fails, Comcast would have the ability to block users from accessing Netflix entirely, so you would have no ability to use your own money to get access to Netflix content. None. How is that not fundamentally a limitation on speech? The entire doctrine of free speech is based on NOT giving sufficient discretion to allow abuse.

[Go2Peace]

102. So if sylvania makes high wattage refrigerators they should pay for the electricity

because they are using an electric infrastructure (which I pay for just like internet) to make their refrigerators viable.....

That is the same argument you are making. It is up to comcast to determine their pricing model and customers to determine if they want it.

[mwooldri]

88. Depends on how nicely Level 3 want to play with Comcast.

Level 3 is Comcast's Internet Service Provider. Comcast is having a hissyfit over getting bigger and bigger bills from Level 3 because Comcast is drawing more data from Level 3 than Comcast is sending to them.

Plus Level 3 and Comcast would have a Service Level Agreement in place. If Comcast blocks Netflix traffic or throttles it down from Level 3's network to its own, then Level 3 may well interpret that as a breach in their Service Level Agreement, and pursue this to the point that Comcast is cut off from Level 3. That will leave Comcast scrambling to get bandwidth with other Tier 1 providers to replace the absence of data that Level 3 would have otherwise been providing.

At this time, it's a PR stunt. If Netflix traffic *is* throttled, then the gloves are off and the Internet vs the Intranet will be lawyering off.

[BzaDem]

90. Whether I am able to pay my own money to receive Netflix content should not depend on how nicely

Level 3 plays with Comcast. If Comcast is concerned with people using too much data, they should charge the people using too much data. No one is forcing them to offer unlimited data plans.

[GOTV]

75. That would be the anti-competitive solution.

Netflix is not forcing any traffic onto Comcast's pipes.

[grace0418]

67. Um, what?

Netflix doesn't dominate or tax anything. People streaming content use bandwidth, and they stream content from many different places. If they're going to charge anyone, Comcast should be charging those who use excessive amounts of bandwidth, not the companies providing content. But that's not what Comcast is doing, they're trying to make things difficult for Netflix so people will use their service.

[GOTV]

73. Bit torrent users use a lot of bandwidth. So do Hulu users.

If the problem is that Comcast cannot supply enough bandwidth for its customers it should charge its bandwidth hogs more. That way content is not discriminated against. The cost of the network is shared more equitably.

[Lucian]

49. But you're already paying for the bandwidth.

Comcast is trying to tell YOU how to use your bandwidth that you're already paying for. It's theft on their part.

[KansasVoter]

59. lol....how dumb are you?

[ejpoeta]

70. this isn't about bandwitdth. this is about stifling competition. period.

[GOTV]

72. Netflix pays for its bandwidth just like everyone else who uses bandwidth does ...

... they pay their bandwidth provider according to the deal they worked out with them. Just like you and I do.

[L0oniX]

33. ...and then Verizon and others will follow.

[mwooldri]

87. Then it gets *really* messy if this is the case.

Verizon (the former UU-Net), Quest, AT&T, Sprint and Global Crossing are your main North American Tier 1 networks. Tier 1 networks generally don't want to mess with each other.

Sorry, but Comcast is only a Tier 2.

[pokercat999]

42. The fact is the internet and broadband are becoming as

important to everyday life as basic telephone service and electricity. It's time this service was treated as a utility and regulated as such. I live about midway between Washington DC and Richmond, VA hardly out in the sticks (small town 5 miles, county seat 10 miles) but the only service available is dial-up or satellite. My wife works from home online; in order for her to work we have to have a Hughes.net business plan which costs $200.00 per month and only allows 850M of downland per day.

[ShadowLiberal]

100. It used to be treated like the telephone companies, until Bush reclassified it

Bush & Republicans took Internet Service Providers off of the restrictions on Telephone companies and other utilities, because of big campaign cash they gave them. Since then studies have shown that Americans are paying more for their Internet and getting less for it.

[pokercat999]

109. Not entirely like phone as the internet companies didn't have

to and still don't service rural areas.

[TheWebHead]

45. yeah, poor netflix

they're a multi billion dollar company who is enjoying gigantic growth thanks to offering a service that Comcast has to subsidize with customers downloading multi gigabyte movie files... The Net Neutrality folks may want to pick a wiser fight.

[onehandle]

48. I pay Comcast for access to the Internet.

They should have no say over what data I choose to use that access for.

Period.

It's a utility. Should my electric company have say over what I use my electricity for?

This is exactly what the net neutrality folks need to pick a fight over.

[Lucian]

50. + a million

[truebrit71]

56. Exactly. Signed and posted on FB.

Fuck Comcast.

[Celebration]

57. Exactly

They can charge us per call, so to speak, as in phone service, but charge more per call when we talk to some folks as opposed to others?? Even though the cost to them per minute is the same? Uh uh. That is not working for me.

[racaulk]

79. Exactly right!

:thumbsup:

[BzaDem]

63. Comcast does NOT HAVE to subsidize anything! They can charge users for gigabytes of data usage

INDEPENDENT of the source or destination of the bandwidth.

Them discriminating against Netflix is little difference than discriminating against Democratic Underground. They can charge users for each byte if they want, and let users decide what to do with that bandwidth.

[GOTV]

76. This is a perfect fight. It's the clearest example yet of the need for net neutrality.

Netflix is not subsidized. They pay for all the bandwidth they use. Just like Google, Amazon, me and you do.

[Uncle Joe]

52. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, cal.

[cbdo2007]

58. Netflix stock up 2.4% today on the news.

hahah aha ha hahahahaha

Love it!

[Stevenmarc]

61. Thanks Comcast, most people don't get Net Neutrality, but you just put it in context

[felix_numinous]

64. The smell of money~

crap I hope Netflix lawyers up and wins this one. I signed the petition, and hope it helps.

[grace0418]

66. Just when I thought I couldn't hate Comcast any more.

Thank goodness we dropped them years ago.

[Liberal In Texas]

71. Signed. n/t

[GOTV]

77. This is like getting a bill from AT&T because you get too many calls from iPhone users ...

... Netflix is not a customer of Comcast but Comcast wants to charge THEM because so many of their customers want to use their service.

[mwooldri]

84. Hmmm... maybe Level 3 should play hardball...

... Disconnect Comcast from the Internet?

Comcast is an important Tier 2 network, but the vast majority of traffic that leaves Comcast's network goes first onto Level3's network - and Level3 is a Tier 1 provider.

Essentially, if Level3 says "Nope, we're not playing" in regards to this Netflix business, Comcast is going to have to look for a new Tier 1 network to connect with very quickly - Level3 could easily discontinue their agreement with Comcast on the basis that Comcast has breached the service level agreement that they would have with each other.

Otherwise, who is going to pay $X for the Comcast Intranet?

[sudopod]

91. That's confusing me too.

It's the mouse biting the cat. Level 3 is a huge backbone provider, not to mention that they have their hands in a zillion other pots, including defense research. They've got bigger friends and more leverage than Comcast by far.

[Catherine Vincent]

89. money money money....

That's what it all boils down to. It's okay to make profits but why be greedy? Sigh!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. Let's see, Comcast is trying to purchase NBC and NBC is one of the owners of...

....


...


HULU, which has just launched a new premium subscription service.

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

[BrklynLiberal]

95. Comcast should be disemboweled....corporately speaking, of course.

What ever happened to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act???

[bridgit]

98. Comcast

Me and hubby have had Netflix forever and we loved it. Do not get me started about Comcast as hubby worked for them in tech support. He told me stories that I could not believe but we wanted the bennie package as he needed surgery at that point but if they were not the only game in town where I live, I would switch in a heartbeat.

[ShadowLiberal]

99. This is why we need Net Neutrality, no Net Neutrality hurts economic commerce on the Internet

All studies have shown that removing net neutrality will hurt innovation and start up Internet businesses while making Internet users pay more for less. We can't allow this to happen. We need to undo the damage Bush did when he got ISPs reclassified so that they weren't governed under the rules of the telecom companies with much more regulation to prevent this kind of crap.

[SnakeEyes]

101. One thing that needs to be considered

Is that users are already paying for bandwidth. There is no shortage, even if some users are using it for streaming. Comcast is trying to get paid on both ends. The data coming from Netflix/Level3 is only coming across Comcast network because their users requested it. It's not being forced onto Comcast.

[mrmpa]

106. If this happens it will hurt my 80 year old mother

I just (2 days ago), bought a Wii from my nephew and set it up for my mom. She has 14 movies in her Netflix queue. As she won't get out much this winter due to weather and two scheduled surgeries it will be a life saver for her. I use FIOS as my ISP. Whatever Comcast wants to do will affect us. Everything anymore is just freaking insane.

[progrocktv]

107. Moffett: FCC Neutrality Rules A Green Light For Usage Billing

...So much for Netflix and Hulu....


"Bernstein Research senior analyst Craig Moffett says that the FCC's just-circulated order on codifying and expanding network neutrality guidelines "specifically and expressly endorses usage-based pricing for broadband." "The tacit endorsement of UBP is, in our view, the biggest news of the day, and must be viewed as very positive for terrestrial broadband operators," Moffett said. "We would expect the introduction of UBP plans from major cable MSOs to follow in short order, and we would expect that their stocks will respond well to such introductions."