Federal Regulator Expected To Hand Huge Win To Net Neutrality

[ksen]

Here's an article that MIT said that Netflix slowed it's own traffic down to blame Comcast.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/

That's some nice pro-Comcast spin.

From the article:

Netflix forced it through clogged delivery routes, when less congested channels were available.

Those "less congested routes" are what the problem is. They are the fast lanes that Comcast and other giant ISPs are trying to institute.

The whole article is about Netflix not using Comcast's fast lanes . . . and then blaming Netflix.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And this articles says Verizon could have easily handled the situation.

The Internet does breed strange bedfellows when you are using your competitor to deliver your product. The other solution is for Netflix to buy a Comcast circuit.

Last time I checked, Netflix offers zero live programming, so they aren't an actual competitor of Comcast.

Netflix is delayed programming, but it's a competitor of Comcast since people would use netflix instead of buying cable. Did Comcast in their agreement to you guarantee your speed to all websites?

So if I cut the cord I can watch ESPN, the latest programs on AMC and Starz, and the Star Wars cartoons on Disney on Netflix!?

No?

But you said that they are a competitor? How can they be a competitor if they don't offer live programming? There is a reason Netflix is less than $10 a month!

People are cutting their Comcast cable so they can just watch Netflix or Hulu. So comcast is losing some revenue from the services of Netflix.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And this articles says Verizon could have easily handled the situation.

The Internet does breed strange bedfellows when you are using your competitor to deliver your product. The other solution is for Netflix to buy a Comcast circuit.

Last time I checked, Netflix offers zero live programming, so they aren't an actual competitor of Comcast.

Netflix is delayed programming, but it's a competitor of Comcast since people would use netflix instead of buying cable. Did Comcast in their agreement to you guarantee your speed to all websites?

So if I cut the cord I can watch ESPN, the latest programs on AMC and Starz, and the Star Wars cartoons on Disney on Netflix!?

No?

But you said that they are a competitor? How can they be a competitor if they don't offer live programming? There is a reason Netflix is less than $10 a month!

People are cutting their Comcast cable so they can just watch Netflix or Hulu. So comcast is losing some revenue from the services of Netflix.

But Hulu Plus actually has new Broadcast programming available, Netflix does not. If you want to see what happened on Angel 10 years ago, Netflix is great. Want to watch Black Sails... not so much.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

People are cutting their Comcast cable so they can just watch Netflix or Hulu. So comcast is losing some revenue from the services of Netflix.

Can you source the survey that states this, or does Comcast have some sort of legal right to the profits of another company?

 

[coloradoatheist]

People are cutting their Comcast cable so they can just watch Netflix or Hulu. So comcast is losing some revenue from the services of Netflix.

Can you source the survey that states this, or does Comcast have some sort of legal right to the profits of another company?

They don't have a right to the profits, however if one customer is using their competitors infrastructure to sell their product they can have issues. Slotting fees have been a normal procedure in the retail market.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can you source the survey that states this, or does Comcast have some sort of legal right to the profits of another company?

They don't have a right to the profits, however if one customer is using their competitors infrastructure to sell their product they can have issues. Slotting fees have been a normal procedure in the retail market.

Wait... so let me get this straight. A customer pays Comcast to be able to access the Internet. That access can be to Netflix. So Comcast is paid money so other people can access Netflix.

Isn't Netflix helping to drive people to get Internet through Comcast? Isn't Comcast getting more money for Internet subscriptions because of sites like Netflix? In fact, people pay Comcast likely four to five times what they pay for Netflix, to access Netflix!

How is Comcast losing in this? They are getting paid to offer access to a service they have nothing to do with.

 

[coloradoatheist]

They don't have a right to the profits, however if one customer is using their competitors infrastructure to sell their product they can have issues. Slotting fees have been a normal procedure in the retail market.

Wait... so let me get this straight. A customer pays Comcast to be able to access the Internet. That access can be to Netflix. So Comcast is paid money so other people can access Netflix.

Isn't Netflix helping to drive people to get Internet through Comcast? Isn't Comcast getting more money for Internet subscriptions because of sites like Netflix?

And they are losing their other services at the same time. It's cannabilization of one product over another of their own. So they need to decide how to handle both products.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wait... so let me get this straight. A customer pays Comcast to be able to access the Internet. That access can be to Netflix. So Comcast is paid money so other people can access Netflix.

Isn't Netflix helping to drive people to get Internet through Comcast? Isn't Comcast getting more money for Internet subscriptions because of sites like Netflix?

And they are losing their other services at the same time. It's cannabilization of one product over another of their own. So they need to decide how to handle both products.

No it isn't. Netflix offers older programming, they are a syndicated programming provider. If Comcast is losing subs to a service that offers programming that is several years old, there is a problem with Comcast's business model.

 

[ksen]

Wait... so let me get this straight. A customer pays Comcast to be able to access the Internet. That access can be to Netflix. So Comcast is paid money so other people can access Netflix.

Isn't Netflix helping to drive people to get Internet through Comcast? Isn't Comcast getting more money for Internet subscriptions because of sites like Netflix?

And they are losing their other services at the same time. It's cannabilization of one product over another of their own. So they need to decide how to handle both products.

A stellar argument for why their content and delivery businesses should be separated.

 

[Jayjay]

And they are losing their other services at the same time. It's cannabilization of one product over another of their own. So they need to decide how to handle both products.

No it isn't. Netflix offers older programming, they are a syndicated programming provider. If Comcast is losing subs to a service that offers programming that is several years old, there is a problem with Comcast's business model.

It's not about Netflix or its particular offering that's the issue. There is no reason why ESPN, Disney, HBO or AMC (or someone completely new) couldn't start a similar service with new programming. That would actually be much better... you pay for the raw bandwidth, and then pay for each additional service you want on top of that. If comcast wants to provide a bundle that gets you the same service cheaper, that's fine, as long as they don't deliberately cripple the stand-alone services.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And they are losing their other services at the same time. It's cannabilization of one product over another of their own. So they need to decide how to handle both products.

A stellar argument for why their content and delivery businesses should be separated.

Except one was built with the other on top. The Internet section was built with the underlying TV cable infrastructure.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

A stellar argument for why their content and delivery businesses should be separated.

Except one was built with the other on top. The Internet section was built with the underlying TV cable infrastructure.

So their infrastructure cost was essentially $0.

 

[ksen]

A stellar argument for why their content and delivery businesses should be separated.

Except one was built with the other on top. The Internet section was built with the underlying TV cable infrastructure.

So?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except one was built with the other on top. The Internet section was built with the underlying TV cable infrastructure.

So their infrastructure cost was essentially $0.

Not quite...your payment to Comcast for the cable bill went to both the content delivery and the infrastructure to get that delivery there. The additions of Internet were on top of that too.

- - - Updated - - -

Except one was built with the other on top. The Internet section was built with the underlying TV cable infrastructure.

So?

So the costs of the Internet were borne out in both the cable bills and the Internet bills. Your Internet bill would be higher without the underlying cable bill too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except one was built with the other on top. The Internet section was built with the underlying TV cable infrastructure.

So?

So the costs of the Internet were borne out in both the cable bills and the Internet bills. Your Internet bill would be higher without the underlying cable bill too.

I haven't seen any trench digging in my neighborhood since I moved in. So why is there an infrastructure cost to the High Speed Internet from Time Warner?

 

[ksen]

Except one was built with the other on top. The Internet section was built with the underlying TV cable infrastructure.

So?

So the costs of the Internet were borne out in both the cable bills and the Internet bills. Your Internet bill would be higher without the underlying cable bill too.

So you're saying that people's cable bills would go down and their internet bills would go up?

It's amazing that google and municipalities (where they're allowed to) are able to build cheaper, faster ISP connections.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except one was built with the other on top. The Internet section was built with the underlying TV cable infrastructure.

So?

So the costs of the Internet were borne out in both the cable bills and the Internet bills. Your Internet bill would be higher without the underlying cable bill too.

So you're saying that people's cable bills would go down and their internet bills would go up?

It's amazing that google and municipalities (where they're allowed to) are able to build cheaper, faster ISP connections.

That's because they don't have the overhead of being a large cable company... and communism.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So their infrastructure cost was essentially $0.

Not quite...your payment to Comcast for the cable bill went to both the content delivery and the infrastructure to get that delivery there. The additions of Internet were on top of that too.

I'm not sure how a $0 infrastructure cost is related to higher cable bills. The cables were laid down in the early 1980s. I have never paid one cent to a cable company in my life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it'd be UPS charging Amazon an extra fee to deliver the box, on top of what they already collected in the beginning to ship it. Netflix already paid someone to get their streams online.

Not quite, and here's the problem. It would be like Amazon sending a package to FedEx and then FedEx hands off to UPS who then hands it off to the customer. So what happens when UPS can't handle the the number of packages it's receiving from FedEx? That's what Comcast is complaining about. The Internet does breed strange bedfellows when you are using your competitor to deliver your product. The other solution is for Netflix to buy a Comcast circuit.

Except UPS has no problem with the load. The only problem is the undersized handoff station.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it'd be UPS charging Amazon an extra fee to deliver the box, on top of what they already collected in the beginning to ship it. Netflix already paid someone to get their streams online.

Not quite, and here's the problem. It would be like Amazon sending a package to FedEx and then FedEx hands off to UPS who then hands it off to the customer. So what happens when UPS can't handle the the number of packages it's receiving from FedEx? That's what Comcast is complaining about. The Internet does breed strange bedfellows when you are using your competitor to deliver your product. The other solution is for Netflix to buy a Comcast circuit.

Except UPS has no problem with the load. The only problem is the undersized handoff station.

- - - Updated - - -

Last time I checked, Netflix offers zero live programming, so they aren't an actual competitor of Comcast.

Movie channels don't offer live programming, either.

 

[Axulus]

Not quite...your payment to Comcast for the cable bill went to both the content delivery and the infrastructure to get that delivery there. The additions of Internet were on top of that too.

I'm not sure how a $0 infrastructure cost is related to higher cable bills. The cables were laid down in the early 1980s. I have never paid one cent to a cable company in my life.

an increase in Cable Communications segment capital expenditures of 9.8% to $5.4 billion primarily due
to the investment in our IP and cloud-enabled video platform, referred to as our X1 platform, the
deployment of our wireless gateways in customers’ homes, and our continued investment in network
infrastructure, as well as the expansion of business services and our home security and automation
services

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/CMCSA/3957604209x0xS1193125-14-47522/1166691/filing.pdf

You sure are doing some funny math, rounding to the nearest $100 billion. Very peculiar.