This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Streaming Wars: Netflix Traffic Gets Throttled By Broadband Companies, Leading To "Unwatchable" Results

Tyler Durden's picture





 

For years, the Netflix streaming business has been growing like a parasite, happy to piggyback on established broadband infrastructures, where the broadband companies themselves have becomes competitors to Netflix for both distribution and content. Until now. Emboldened by the recent Net Neutrality ruling, which has put bandwidth hogs like Netflix which at last check was responsible for over 30% of all downstream US internet traffic...

... broadband providers are finally making their move, and in a preliminary salvo whose ultimate compromise will be NFLX paying lots of money, have started to throttle Netflix traffic. The WSJ reports that the war between the broadband-ers and the video streaming company has finally emerged from the "cold" phase and is fully hot.

Netflix Inc. subscribers have seen a lot more spinning wheels lately as they wait for videos to load, thanks to a standoff deep in the Internet.

 

The online-video service has been at odds with Verizon Communications Inc. VZ and other broadband providers for months over how much Netflix streaming content they will carry without being paid additional fees.

 

Now the long simmering conflict has heated up and is slowing Netflix, in particular, on Verizon's fiber-optic FiOS service, where Netflix says its average prime-time speeds dropped by 14% last month. The slowdown comes as Netflix is rolling out the new season of its Emmy-winning series "House of Cards."

Not surprisingly, Netflix wants broadband companies to hook up to its new video-distribution network without paying them fees for carrying its traffic. But the biggest U.S. providers—Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T Inc. —have resisted, insisting on compensation.

And while there is no legal basis with which Netflix can be pushed to pay for traffic, backbone companies are quietly putting the squeeze on the House of Cards maker where it hurts most: watching enjoyment.

Until the standoff gets resolved, the bulk of Netflix's traffic continues to flow across Internet intermediaries, including low-cost carrier Cogent Communications Group Inc. People familiar with Cogent's and Netflix's thinking say the cable and telephone companies are delaying upgrading existing connections. Executives at major broadband providers, meanwhile, privately blame the traffic jam on Netflix's refusal to distribute its traffic more efficiently.

 

Netflix said it carefully plans its routing to make sure customers have the best experience possible. Verizon said it treats all Internet traffic equally. Neither side is budging, people familiar with the matter said, leading to growing congestion.

The result is that the speed of NFLX traffic is crashing, something which will make watching its High Definition content increasingly more unpleasant as buffering times mean more time sitting watching spinning circle, and less time watching content.

The end result: "unwatchable programming":

The bottleneck has made Netflix unwatchable for Jen Zellinger, an information-technology manager from Carney, Md., who signed up for the service last month. She couldn't play an episode of "Breaking Bad" without it stopping, she said, even after her family upgraded their FiOS Internet service to a faster, more expensive package.

 

"We tried a couple other shows, and it didn't seem to make any difference," she said. Mrs. Zellinger said she plans to drop her Netflix service soon if the picture doesn't improve, though she will likely hold on to her upgraded FiOS subscription.

 

She and her husband thought about watching "House of Cards," but she said they probably will skip it. "We'd be interested in getting to that if we could actually pull up the show," she said.

 

Netflix acknowledges the sluggish performance, though spokesman Joris Evers said that "generally our members are able to watch Netflix, albeit perhaps at a lower quality and with potentially some startup delays at the busiest times of day."

 

Verizon has a policy of requiring payments from networks that dump more data into its pipes than they carry in return. "When one party's getting all the benefit and the other's carrying all the cost, issues will arise," said Craig Silliman, Verizon's head of public policy and government affairs.

Ironically, as described above, it is the broadband companies that end up the winners from the NFLX throttling, even as subscribers give the streaming company a chance, then promptly cast it away after a month or so of unwatchable results.

What happens next is that subscribers, unhappy with the throttled distribution whose download speeds will keep declining over time, switch over to competing services - there certainly is an overabundance of those. And in a world in which Amazon can burn through endless cash and be rewarded by the idiot market, it is only a matter of time before broadband companies preferentially reward Jeff Bezos at the expense of putting Netflix ultimately out of business. At which point they can redirect their attention to Amazon Prime of course, and repeat the entire process once more, unless of course Amazon itself hasn't become the dominant (and money-losing of course) broadband provider by then.

As for Netflix' relentless parabolic stock price action: good luck with that particular house of cards.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:31 | Link to Comment skwid vacuous
skwid vacuous's picture

NFLX = $25 billion house of cards

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:36 | Link to Comment DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

Netflix is a buy at $30 (P/E 16), at $436 not so much.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:52 | Link to Comment Stackers
Stackers's picture

And what about the fees us users are paying ? Sounds like they are double dipping to me. I dont remember " you can use our network, as long as you don't use it too much " being anywhere in my service contract

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:10 | Link to Comment MillionDollarBogus_
MillionDollarBogus_'s picture

This is good news.

If folks turn away from their mindless TV content and head toward their local library, there could be a real benefit from this...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:15 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

How are they going to find it without google maps?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 14:54 | Link to Comment James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Cable companies gotta be making those some seriously slow ass internet connections if they can't handle NFLX. Fiber-optic?? 

The good news is if you don't like your scamming cable provider you can cancel and go with someone else. Oh wait, this is in America, opps

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:17 | Link to Comment GubbermintWorker
GubbermintWorker's picture

Isn't that what my Kindle is for?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 13:15 | Link to Comment Silver Sativa
Silver Sativa's picture

That will never happen.

 

People go to libraries for the cheaper version of the coffee house experience. Yes, you get coffee and croisants, but you also get belligerent homeless people with no social graces, whatsoever.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:11 | Link to Comment Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

 

 

Tragedy of the commons Stackers,

They sell service based on what the "average" residential user will utilize. Before Netflix, that could be done cost effectively, and end users could get relatively cheap internet for their 'modest' demands.

Netflix screwed up the equation, puting stress on the providers' services. Somebody has to pay for that extra capacity. Until now, Netflix was getting a free ride. Looks like the day of judgment has arrived.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:23 | Link to Comment EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

They provide a service, and end customers use it.

This is sort of the equivalent of electricity companies demanding extra payment if you use your electricity to power, say, a vacuum cleaner. Or the water company hiking rates when you use the water for flushing the toilet.

It's pure greed by blatantly anti-competitive cable companies, nothing else.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:28 | Link to Comment Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

 

 

Escape Key,

So, are you saying that your electrical bill should be the same as your neighbors, even if you use twice the electricity?

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:30 | Link to Comment EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

If we both buy a package which allows unlimited use, then yes, I do.

It's not my fault the cable companies promise shit they refuse to deliver.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:38 | Link to Comment SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

Television sucks.  Reality shows suck, cop shows suck, reality cop shows suck X 10; cable programming packages suck.  People dare to watch what they choose using bandwidth they are paying for (while avoiding our advertisers) = "we have to throttle that shit".

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:32 | Link to Comment XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

If Comcast, Verizon, and the few other mega corporations had upgraded their networks instead of pocketing taxpayer money to boost quarterly profits, netflix traffic wouldn't be an issue. They're claiming poverty, after fleecing us.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:39 | Link to Comment Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Comercial Customers pay a lot more because it is assumed they will use a lot more Bandwith.  Netflix ups the anti on the Residential Customers.  Eventually with "some" using most of the broadband will eventually cost everyone more.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:43 | Link to Comment massornament
massornament's picture

A better analogy would be if a large home appliance maker comes out with a 'must-have' appliance that raises the average electircity bill by 30% and the appliance maker lobbies the government to force the utility companies to eat the costs of the increased electricity usage instead of having the users pay for the electricity they use.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 13:00 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

No, that is a bad analogy...

The total network bandwidth is fixed. whereas in your case the power cos. have to increase supply to meet increased electricity demand. The broadband network costs the same upkeep whether it is used or not once it is in place..

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 17:49 | Link to Comment FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

Yes, but the broadband capacity ALREADY EXISTS. Otherwise, how did millions of people enjoy Netflix without the hiccups until recently? If the cable cos are selling you 30 Mbps LAST MILE streams (not internet backbone), and, as another poster pointed out, you're not using all 30 Mbps, how can that cause congestion? Is it perhaps a case of the cable companies OVERSELLING their products and promising you 30 Mbps (so they can get an extra $15/month from you), but they can't actually deliver it? How is that Netflixes's (sic) fault? Sounds more to me like a case of fraud by the cable cos, and they are trying to punish Netflix since it's the prime application that's demonstrating their fraud.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 13:08 | Link to Comment InflammatoryResponse
InflammatoryResponse's picture

Wow EscapeKey,

 

that word "equivalent" doesn't mean what you think it means. 

 

The power company maintains the power lines that bring the JUICE to your house.  or didn't you already know that?  so they sell you the power you use over THEIR powerlines.  IOW, they absord all the cost associated with delivering your "service" in this case power.  Netflix does NOT incur the overhead costs of maintaining the network they pump shows out over. 

 

do you live in a house?  if not pretend you do. 

 

you pay taxes that support your road maintainance.  so you don't have potholes in your street(s).  Now let's pretend that Billy Joe Jack Bob lives at the end of your street.  he owns a big bit of property and figures out he has a gold deposit.  well golly that requires MASSIVE truck to drive up your street 24hours a day 7days a week, and your road is turning into mush.  your little smart car can barely navigate the ruts left by those trucks from BJJB's mining operation.

 

you go down to his house and say dude, you need to fix the street.  he replies with take hike "key" I don't give a crap if your smart car is road kill for my dump trucks. you decide to take matters into your little puny smart car driving hands.  you get a horde of smart cars to populate the street to slow the evil BJJB's trucks down  lessening the wear and tear on your street.

 

in the above story  BJJB is netflix, and YOU are the backbone companies.

 

in a nutshell NFLX is NOT incurring the full cost of delivering their service.  if they tried to throw DVD's into mail boxes without postage they'd get locked up.

 

and lastly,  you just have no idea what you're talking about :)

 

 

 

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 13:29 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Horrible analagy.  Network bandwidth is not power.  The infrastructure is there already, and is able to meet demand.  There is no further expense from the cable company.  Futher- I pre pay for a 30 megabit download stream, and never use all of it, even though half of it is taken by netflix.  I am not pro-rated like power use, there is no meter.  They provide me a 30 megabit service I pay for.

I purchase an entire road, and it is not up to them to decide what gets driven on it.  Further, I already pay for the maintenance of MY road.

You're the idiot that doesn't understand.  Now go back to sleep, tool.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 17:43 | Link to Comment FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

Oh, man, are you idiotic. The whole point of deregulation was to bust up the 'natural monopoly' of last mile carriers - whether it's telephone, cable, internet, electricty, or natural gas - and allow the end-user to choose who he buys the content from, while the last mile carrier just charges for transport. So, you can, in some places, elect to buy your electricity from a completely green solar/wind/unicorn fart company, and still have it delivered by your local utility. That's a separation of power generation and power transport. You can get long distance service from AT&T or MCI or whoever, and pay your local telco for last mile transport. That's a separation of long distance and local transmission. You pay your cable tv provider to deliver the signal, but you pay HBO/Showtime/porn company for the content. That's a separation of transmission and program generation. You pay the pipeline company to bring the natural gas to your house, but you can buy gas from a reseller (which made sense about 15 years ago - I locked in at $10/mcf for five years, while gas prices skyrocketed to $35; today, I'm on the 'standard supply' because the resellers still want $35 when gas is going for $6). Do you see a pattern here?

And your road case is BS. Residential roads are not designed for massive earth moving and rock crushing vehicles, and they'd doubtless exceed the posted weight limit for the road, resulting in huge fines for BJBB.

in a nutshell NFLX is NOT incurring the full cost of delivering their service Er, I don't think 'incur' means what you think it does. If Netflix is not incurring the full cost of delivering their service, shouldn't the carriers be happy?

But, Netflix negotiates with the studios for the content, and then provides it. Surely they pay the studios for their product; that's a cost, AND NETFLIX PAYS IT. Surely they must have servers galore to store and supply the feeds; that's a cost AND NETFLIX PAYS IT. Surely they must have bandwidth to the internet backbone from their offices to carry ALL their traffic; that's a cost, AND NETFLIX PAYS IT.

What, pray tell, are these costs that Netflix is getting a free ride on?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 16:35 | Link to Comment OpenThePodBayDoorHAL
OpenThePodBayDoorHAL's picture

Can't we have ANYTHING? I mean is EVERYTHING just completely and utterly corrupt?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:24 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

We've been paying premium for a long time for better capasity. They need to invest our money back into the network instead of their pockets.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:59 | Link to Comment n.d.v.
n.d.v.'s picture

Actually, pretty much exactly that is in every single internet contract. Officially it's to prevent "network abuse".

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:42 | Link to Comment Parabox
Parabox's picture

You keep saying "Net Nuetrality"; I dont think it means what you think it means...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 14:02 | Link to Comment monkeyshine
monkeyshine's picture

Thank you! The issue isn't NFLX market cap or market share, the issue is consumers pay for access. If carriers can give preferential treatment to content that makes them more money then that belies the ironic and Orwellian "net neutrality".

We need congress to break up the carriers, not allow them to merge and conglomerate and then dictate which content we can view without being interrupted. imagine if Comcast forced pop-up ads on every google search. This is not acceptable. We need 10 choices not 1 (Comcast) or if we're lucky 2 (Comcast and Vios).

Thu, 02/20/2014 - 06:49 | Link to Comment dreadnaught
dreadnaught's picture

Comcast and Time Warner are about to merge if all goes well $$$$$$$$$$$$

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 17:18 | Link to Comment FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

you can use our network, as long as you don't use it too much "

Actually, that sort of phrase is in just about every cable or phone contract with "unlimited" downloads and/or long distance. Under what they call "fair use" doctrine, they can slow down or suspend your service if, in their judgement, you're using it too much. e.g:

 

 

  1. You may not use the Services for anything other than your own personal use. You may not resell the Services, receive any charge or benefit for the use of the Services or provide Internet access or any other feature of the Services to any third party. You may not share or transfer your Services without our express

05/07

    consent.

    15. From time to time, we may establish policies, rules and limits (together, the "Policies") concerning use of the Services, Equipment and any products, content, applications or services used in conjunction with the Services or Equipment. Your use of the Services is subject to these Policies. We will provide you with notice of the Policies and of changes to the Policies. Our Acceptable Use Policy, available at rogers.com/terms, is incorporated into these Terms by reference. In addition, when using certain Yahoo! services, you may be subject to additional terms (which may be posted from time to time) applicable to such Services and which are incorporated by reference into these Terms.

    16. When using the Services, the Equipment or any products, content, applications or services used in conjunction with the Services or Equipment, you must comply with all applicable laws and our Policies.

    We may suspend or terminate your Services, the Service Agreement and any other agreement for services you may have with any related Rogers entity, without notice to you, if you engage in one or more of the activities prohibited by our Policies. In addition, you may be charged for any costs incurred by us or any related Rogers entity in connection with your breach of the terms of this Section, including costs incurred to enforce your compliance.

    17. We reserve the right to restrict, change, suspend or terminate your Service by any means if your access, use or connection to the Services, Equipment or our facilities is impairing or adversely affecting our operation or the use of our Services or facilities by others.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 19:15 | Link to Comment macbone
macbone's picture

The asshole who wrote the article doubles as a press agent for cable cartel I guess. The bandwidth is suddenly reduced at all four carriers in the exact same time frame. No collusion there, I am sure. Nothing to see here, proles, just move along and pay higher prices as we consolidate into a monopoly and provide you inferior content for higher prices.

Oh, and your elected representatives??? Don' t bother complaining to them. We bought them up a long time ago. Eat shit peasants, it's Obamatime.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:54 | Link to Comment SafelyGraze
SafelyGraze's picture

give me control of a network's bandwidth, and I care not who provides its content.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andrew_Fletcher

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:39 | Link to Comment Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

I'm sure all the money Comcast gets will go to infrastructure improvements to the data backbone.

/sarc

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:55 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

netflix is unwatchable where i live

like trying to watch youtube videos over an antique phone line...what was that called again?

seriously, stop start chatter

i have used blockbuster for years to rent movies by mail, which is super convenient, and gone

they want to stream now also, and that is unwatchable

google chrome contraption works if you let it buffer for an hour

redbox doesnt carry what i would rent

what someone needs to come up with is a storefront , with a selection of ......oh nevermind

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:05 | Link to Comment Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

We have ATT Uverse and over the last two months Netflix has become completely unviewable.

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:55 | Link to Comment eclectic syncretist
eclectic syncretist's picture

To be fair Karl Denninger has been predicting this situation would arise for over three years now.  Without control over their costs or service quality, Netflix is toast.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2387367

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:10 | Link to Comment duo
duo's picture

I want my, I want my, I want my DVD.....

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:14 | Link to Comment Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

 

 

Karl was right.

It's time that those who utilize the bandwidth pay for it.

So long Netflix...

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:28 | Link to Comment EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

They do pay for it.

End consumers buy a package to reflect their data usage, and Netflix spends money on back end infrastructure (well, actually Amazon do) to handle the traffic at their end.

The only reason they can get away with this is because the US broadband market exists in a state of monopoly. And with the recent "totally not anti-competitive" merger between TW and Comcast, the American consumer can fully expect higher rates for worse levels of service.

Meanwhile, the Comcast executives all upgrade their Porsches to Ferraris.

ALSO keep in mind Denninger's background. You most certainly can't expect him to be objective on the issue.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 13:06 | Link to Comment superflex
superflex's picture

The merger will never happen.  FCC wont allow it.

Dont get your panties in a wad, Anna.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 18:10 | Link to Comment malek
malek's picture

Good luck with that opinion.

I believe that (i.e. the FCC effectively blocking the merger), if it doesn't happen within a year.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 22:41 | Link to Comment Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

Krugman came out with an article yesterday against it.  The thing is, he was and is largely silent about various bank mergers, and past media consolidation.

Let me rip this bandaid off quickly, I believe certain people are ethnocentric enough to view it as a "monopoly" only when it's not members of your own group doing it.

Thu, 02/20/2014 - 06:46 | Link to Comment dreadnaught
dreadnaught's picture

the mans a psychotic monkey jerker-who has temper tantrums and will ban you if he doesnt like what you say.....a crybaby-sometimes he will close his site for a whole day if he is having his period...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:35 | Link to Comment XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

Comcast and Verizon are using this wedge issue to chop up the Internet and sell it back to you in pieces. All while arguing that they're doing you a favor. They're going to end the Internet.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 22:45 | Link to Comment Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

sort of, but their agenda isn't as bad as the agenda of the Thought Police who are rearing to do what they've done in the UK.  I sort of agree with your above posts but think you are over-simplifying a bit  -no offense, just my opinion, but in any event the censorship aspect worries me a lot more.  It is easier to censor when there are fewer providers.

 

As it is, the MSM being owned by, apparently, about 6 mega corps gives us incredibly similar news channel to channel.  Even if you only speak English, there is certainly enough foreign press in English to certify that American MSM certainly seems to largely regurgitate the narrative they are spoon fed by the govs.  Syria coverage was a frightening example.

 

In a nutshell:  They're coming after internet freedom. Consolidation facilitates it.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:11 | Link to Comment Blue Horshoe Lo...
Blue Horshoe Loves Annacott Steel's picture

What do you think the monthly fee I pay for internet service is you fucking retard?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 18:00 | Link to Comment malek
malek's picture

A one-sided view again from KD.

Look at the traffic chart:
Youtube causes 16% of downstream traffic (if that statistic is to be believed).
Where are the providers which throttle Youtube?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:36 | Link to Comment Jannn
Jannn's picture

World Gold Council Clueless on Chinese Gold Demand?

 

http://www.ingoldwetrust.ch/world-gold-council-clueless-on-chinese-gold-...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:27 | Link to Comment StandardDeviant
StandardDeviant's picture

At least try to stay somewhere in the general vicinity of the topic, would you?

It's not like ZH is lacking in threads about Chinese gold demand.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:46 | Link to Comment superflex
superflex's picture

He's a shill paid to promote a blog.

Just not the brightest shill in the toolshed.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:36 | Link to Comment 90's Child
90's Child's picture

Netflix needs to become 'Pornflix' seems like a much more profitable industry.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 15:07 | Link to Comment vulcanraven
vulcanraven's picture

Nutflix™

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:37 | Link to Comment rubiconsolutions
rubiconsolutions's picture

Maybe they'll start throttling fonestar's endless drivel about Bitcoin.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:29 | Link to Comment midtowng
midtowng's picture

The cable companies are going to drive Netflix out of business and no one is going to take their place. It's a stupid business plan in the long-run.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:35 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Never saw this coming...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:46 | Link to Comment toady
toady's picture

I'll just assume the missing /sarc...

Yeah, this has been coming for a long time. In fact, they wanted to "throttle" back when they first opened up to the public, but some bastard snuck in a bunch of legislation that fucked it all up.

Watch these "net neutrality" bills. They're all about walking back the already neutral net.

Some piggys are more neutral than others...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:57 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

cant believe i up arrowed that toadie

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:56 | Link to Comment toady
toady's picture

Sorry 'bout that....

Just click on the down arrow & it'll change.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:14 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

funny, i didnt even notice your handle when i responded to the flakmeister who i was calling a toadie

no insult meant to you

i was more surprised i had to up arrow flak who i do not see eye to eye with

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:41 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Free your mind buddy and the rest will follow...

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:44 | Link to Comment novictim
novictim's picture

Do you disagree with flak on this issue?  Or does your disagreements involve OTHER issues?

Are you using the up/down arrows like a HS CheerLeader in a popularity contest?

 

Please, the +/- arrows should be topic comment specific.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:35 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

Broadband = $300 billion for cancer drugs/treatments

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:57 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

broad band

like pussy riot?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:03 | Link to Comment Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

hi - oh!

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:01 | Link to Comment krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Isn't that a rubber band?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:16 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

no joke

i saw the rubber band at a hippie douche outdoor concert with my parents when i was a child

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:37 | Link to Comment alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

The FCC will be forced to declare the internet a public utility. Mainly, because it is.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:44 | Link to Comment DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

They should put the NSA in charge of it. Mainly, because it is.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:44 | Link to Comment curbyourrisk
curbyourrisk's picture

Yes,  A public utility the .GOV wants complete control of, including the right to to turn off at the first sign the peasants are finally getting it...  The first time the peasants demand their rights or freedoms....  SHUT UP PROLES, or I will turn off your INTERNET....

 

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:54 | Link to Comment Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Same thing for Smart Meters.  They could shut down a whole grid with the flip of a switch.  Scarry.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:57 | Link to Comment john39
john39's picture

aside from the negative health effects, smart meters lead to higher utility bills.  what a surprise.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:03 | Link to Comment Blame Crash
Blame Crash's picture

"Surveillance Meters" is a truer description of what they're doing.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:50 | Link to Comment XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

You're scared of the government possibly doing something rather than the corporate monopoly actually doing it right now. The Federal Government doesn't have to do any of the things you're scared of because the people who financially support every major politician will do it for them. Comcast/Verizon will chop up the Internet, slow it down, and sell it back to you in pieces like they're doing you a favor. They will destroy our rights and freedoms and charge us extra for the convenience of becoming serfs.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 22:50 | Link to Comment Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

first of all, you're presupposing that government and corporations are separate.  Second of all, when a corporation does something, someone else can come along to offer better service.  When government does it, people with guns make sure there is no possibility of an alternate route.

So while it's valid to worry about the corporations, it is invalid not to worry about government coercion.  Given the various assaults on civil liberties, and the rhetoric of politicians like Joe Lieberman, goverment censorship seems to be certain to be frog boiled in.

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:20 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

public utility?

like private water gas and electric companies?

not to mention garbage collection, and sewer

i dont think any of my public utilities are anything but private

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:39 | Link to Comment NOZZLE
NOZZLE's picture

compensation for what broadband companies are giveneasments  in the street for nothin,  building's owners are required to allow them to put their  cables were they want, they had a captive audience for a century for lousy phone service for which they charged $4 for a minute.  

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:40 | Link to Comment Dismal Scientist
Dismal Scientist's picture

Best guess is consumer will ultimately win, for once. Netflix highly likely to seek intervention from the authorities, if they feel they can prove there is a restrictive practice in place. There will be a deal, and the broadband providers will have to back off. Agree not good for Netflix stock at these levels though...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:40 | Link to Comment withglee
withglee's picture

Sure, and once the consumers win they should make the same demands on their power company ... right?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:41 | Link to Comment Impoverished Ps...
Impoverished Psychologist's picture

The lunacy of cloud based infrastructure baffles me. Do people really want to be helpless clients, dependent upon their internet connection for every damn thing?

Hard drives and DVD-R backups are the equivalent of precious metals - if you don't hold your data in your hand, it's definately not yours!

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:57 | Link to Comment RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

MBA bean counters wet dreaming their next brainstorm, just like outsourcing, it will overshoot.

Also might as well send your trade secrets to your competitors directly right now anyway.....

I will trade away my future viability for a dollar today

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:17 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Stupidest thing I've ever read. 10 up arrows? How often do you watch something more than once?  How do you get your content today to back up... I bet you download it, probably from torrents.  The cloud is where it is at.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:48 | Link to Comment toady
toady's picture

You missed it....

He's talking bout PERSONAL data, not movies & such...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:37 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Not really, I inferred he's speaking about local copies of movies since this article is about streaming.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:23 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

i would rather watch 'the cowboys' with john wayne 100 times than "step up" or any of that ilk once

 

there are numerous shows and movies i have watched repeatedly

 

-1

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:42 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Sounds like you have a lot of time on your hands.  You should try something new.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:03 | Link to Comment Comte d'herblay
Comte d'herblay's picture

For some programming like Frasier, Modern Family, and several PBS fiction series, like Doc Martin, Joe Bonnamassa, I have seen them all several times and will do so again.

Great programming needs to be revisited to savor it, get what you didn't hear the first and second time around.

I may never get tired of watching Niles set his pants and the Coco Chanel couch on fire. 

I will never watch another episode of Breaking Bad since its last three years were horrible, but I will go back and hear the writers of House of Cards pillory central government.  True Detective has more usable philosophy to think about that cannot be gleaned with only 1 or 2 viewings.  

 

 

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 22:51 | Link to Comment Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

great for music and movies.  shit for most anything else.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:53 | Link to Comment Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

The business of Netflix is one thing, but the stranglehold the providers have on industry is quite another. There is no good that can come from so few providers having as much control over the net as they have.

 

 

Edit. Now I have Netflix ads popping up all over the place. I hate this.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:01 | Link to Comment toady
toady's picture

The first thing I saw after I clicked the link was a netflix ad...

Then I muttered 'shit' under my breath.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:51 | Link to Comment superflex
superflex's picture

AdBlock Plus and all is well.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:03 | Link to Comment krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Send ZH a check, then send one to an Ad-blocker developer..

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:46 | Link to Comment MilwaukeeMark
MilwaukeeMark's picture

This competing greed-fest will wound both the content provider and the infrastructure provider. Both wounded and bleeding, the door will swing wide open for a more Alpha male provider using another medium .. and both original players will have wished they'd just worked together in their customers' best interest.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:46 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Don't worry about Hastings, he got plenty.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:03 | Link to Comment eclectic syncretist
eclectic syncretist's picture

Reed Hastings is selling NFLX as fast as he can without crashing the stock, and anyone else with any semblance of common sense should too.  Problem is, most people overextend themselves when they sell short (thereby making themselves susceptible to getting "squeezed") by shorting on margin, which is about as stupid as being long NFLX at over $400. 

Disclosure: The opinions expressed here are the result of painful experience!

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:47 | Link to Comment Max Cynical
Max Cynical's picture

I've recently had the same experience with AppleTV...selecting "buy and watch now", I was informed my video would be ready in 5h 36m...unacceptable. And it wasn't my connection as I was getting between 25 and 52 Mbps down.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:47 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

NTP amplification attacks

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:49 | Link to Comment boopetyboopclick
boopetyboopclick's picture

Is ZH really anti net-neutrality?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:05 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

They are actually anti-anything American, especially a sucess story. Just look at the love that Putin and his merry band of kleptocrats and thugs get here...

Admittedly, Netflix probably got ahead of itself, but that only shows what people are willing to pay for any form of growth in this moribund economy...

The FCC should rule that Cable providers are essentially utililities now, but there is a lot money at stake. In other words, this is just like the Keystone XL, it is all about who gets the profits...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:53 | Link to Comment XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

Anyone who is against Net Neutrality is either dangerously stupid or evil.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:04 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Or merely talking their book...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:49 | Link to Comment Ghostdog
Ghostdog's picture

I thought for sure healthcare.gov would be one of the highest traffic areas per Jim Carny...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:50 | Link to Comment Max Cynical
Max Cynical's picture

Last time I looked at my bill, I was paying the broadband provider for the fastest level of service.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:54 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

yep. this is an internet provider problem, not a netflix problem.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:23 | Link to Comment Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

 

 

Paying for lunch at the local Golden Corral doesn't give you the right to empty every single pan of food onto your own plate and eat everything in the restaurant yourself.

This is essentially what Netflix did; it gave it's users the ability to eat all the food in the place.

Unfortunately, no restaurant could stay in business when every customer can eat ALL the food in the restaurant for the price of just one lunch. SOMEONE has to pay for this, and it should be the people eating ALL the food.

Sorry Netflix, your day of reckoning has arrived....

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:39 | Link to Comment XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

Your little story might be apt if Golden Corral deliberately ripped out their kitchens to put in a hot plate and a microwave, whining that they can't produce food fast enough as a result.  When you only make three cheese sticks, and Netflix walks buy to eat one of them, is it their fault for "hogging all the food?"

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 13:43 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

No.  I rent my very own kitchen, and can cook whatever I like.  Part of my agreement was to buy a big enough kitchen to cook a Netflix.  They want me to cook their food instead, and wish to force me into it by removing the tools to cook a Netflix.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 15:08 | Link to Comment FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

Fail.

A typical movie is 700 MB (not blue ray), and lasts about 90 minutes. That's less than 8 MB/minute, or 135 kB/s. Changing from bytes to bits, that's just over 1.1 Mb/s.

So, if I have a 10 Mb/s connection - not superfast - I should be able to stream 3 Netflix shows at once without even using half the bandwidth I AM PAYING FOR.

This is not "eating all the food". This isn't even filling your plate.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:16 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And Americans pay far more for much worse service than many other countries...

See for example (there are many many links, this is just one)

http://schools.papyrusclubs.com/rhss/entertainment/top-10-nations-averag...

By the was it is 5 times cheaper in Sweden and Korea....

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:34 | Link to Comment Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

For cripes sakes. Why the hell are you junking this people? Do you enjoy paying through the nose and being ass raped by our shitty providers?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:23 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It is perfect example of some people here being unable to seperate the objective from the subjective. It happens when you live in a bubble of bullshit and someone has the temerity to point it out...

That and it probably burns their ass that the den of the socialist beast has faster and cheaper Internet...

But seriously, Romania has better internet than the US??? How the mighty have fallen...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:44 | Link to Comment viahj
viahj's picture

does network size (population density) have anything to do with it?  that, and our aging infrastructure?  a lot of these countries are 3rd or 4th gen infrastructure when it comes to internet.  (not that i really know what i'm talking about but i'm refering to cable as 2nd gen because telephone wires are 1st gen in my mind). 

now compare Romania 's internet infrastructure to the USA in say...2002. 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 16:39 | Link to Comment superflex
superflex's picture

Flak fails to see the expansion of fiber in this country and the associated logistics with covering 3,8 million square miles and 385 million people.

Google Fiber (1,000 mbps) coming to 9 more cities.

http://tinyurl.com/pcewpjd

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 17:44 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It's the last foot of your connection that really determines your bandwidth..

And not only are Sweden and Korea (and others) faster, they are cheaper...

No matter how you spin it, having ISPs in a monopolistic position combined with regulatory capture is the root of the problem...

Finally the backbone of the US internet has been fiber for many years already...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:24 | Link to Comment superflex
superflex's picture

No Doc,

People realize that the top ten list includes tiny countries with high population densities unlike here in the States.  S. Korea, Japan and Hong Kong are 1-2-3.

I'd like to see these benovolant leaders of the top 10 countries try to provide the same level of service when their land area is increased by 100X.

FWIW, I get between 4 and 15 Mbps down with an average speed greater than 7Mbps (Standard TWC in SW Ohio), which makes my connection the same as number 2 Japan.  

The horror.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 13:00 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Last time I look NY, LA etc... were just as densely populated as any of those countries and the broadband still sucks..

So that argument ain't gonna cut it...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 13:31 | Link to Comment superflex
superflex's picture

Show me some stats on NY and LA or STFU.

I can get 100 Mpbs from Cincinnati Bell Fioptics if I want it (you know, the flyover area that the Hoi Polloi on the east coast and west coats scoff at).  I dont fell like spending $85/mo on my internet though.  Kansas City, Austin and Provo have Goggle fiber which delivers 1,000 Mbps.  

The 15 Mbps max (7 Mbps avg.) I get from standard TWC ($19.99/mo) is plenty and competes just fine with 90% of the world.

I have two teens streaming Netflix at my house without a problem.

I guaran-fucken-tee you that if the list only considered the top 25 to 50 cities in the US, we would be in the top 10 of your cherry picked list brought to you by President OFagga and his desire to socialize internet for all.

Fuck you and merry socialist ways!

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 14:22 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Good for you...

Now go fuck yourself because just about every possible analysis of the situation except maybe those funded/initiated by the ISPs agree with me...

You really shouldn't let your worldview  get in the way of facts....

Finally, the US has a 30% higher population density than Sweden...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_terr...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 15:40 | Link to Comment superflex
superflex's picture

...and the United States is 24x bigger.

What's so hard about this other than your skull?


Wed, 02/19/2014 - 18:20 | Link to Comment malek
malek's picture

I tend to call BS on this.

One would need to compare areas with similar population density, for starters.
Then I would like to see a clear definition of "average speed" and "percent of connections" - it could be highly skewed if for example rural folks in South Korea just never even try to get Internet service.
Also where exactly are prices mentioned in the article you linked?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:50 | Link to Comment Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Ichan sold just in time.  Did Reid tip him off?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:47 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

No, actually it was McConnell...

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:51 | Link to Comment RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

At the risk of being labelled a curmudgion, I have to admit I dropped all cable and Dirrect tv last year.  I bought a new antenna and have gone retro. 

I still have high speed internet via DSL and Amazon Prime and Roku but save lots of $.  I do miss the golf channel but that is about it....  Plus I never got the HD Direct tv antennas before,, so the real HD via antenna for free is really nice. 

I live in a metro close enough to Canada to get some of their channels so that is a benefit as well.  I do some consulting to Directv but that is all I want to do with those types

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:11 | Link to Comment centerline
centerline's picture

Nice.  I am there myself.  Finally have the family motivated to do this.  I know quite a few people who have already done the same.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:05 | Link to Comment FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

I used an HD antenna until I moved to a house with a huge tree in the front yard. Ooops.

But you might not be aware that you actually get BETTER quality HD over the air than you do over most cable networks, as they compress the signal to save bandwidth.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:51 | Link to Comment madcows
madcows's picture

same shit with hulu

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:56 | Link to Comment shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Watch the original BBC House of Cards.

Ian Richardson was hands down the best villain ever to hit TV.

His cold, understated malevolence is a marvel to behold.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:42 | Link to Comment Pool Shark
Pool Shark's picture

 

 

You might think that;... I couldn't possibly comment.

 

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:52 | Link to Comment Comte d'herblay
Comte d'herblay's picture

I have, but Francis Underwood throwing Zoe into the path of the oncoming speeding train to obliterate her, was over the top  evil. 

I don't recall wanting to kill Ian Richardson as much as I do Spacey. 

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:57 | Link to Comment Blame Crash
Blame Crash's picture

Just do yourself a big favor and turn the Idiot Box off for good. Your Mind will thank you later on when it realizes out brain washed it once was.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:59 | Link to Comment laomei
laomei's picture

I never understood why everyone doesn't just torrent everything... which is not only free, but nearly impossible to screw with.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:21 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

You're suggesting they can't make torrent traffic less neutral?  Why would I want a local copy of a tv series I would only watch once?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 12:01 | Link to Comment FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

Here in the Great White North, at least one major cable co (code named "Robbers"), throttles all P2P traffic (e.g. BitTorrent). You can watch as the speed on your torrent goes from 500 kb/s to 200, to 100 to 19.2 to 1-2 kb/s. This usually happens during the busiest times (evenings), but I've seen it happen in the middle of the night when the network is virtually dormant. At 500 kb/s, a typical one hour drama (700 MB) takes about 3 hours to download. At 2 kb/s, it takes a week.

Cable co's don't like it when you try to get for free what they want to charge you for.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 22:42 | Link to Comment laomei
laomei's picture

Then get a proxy and route it all through there.  No ISP in their right mind is going to nuke SSH connections.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 22:45 | Link to Comment laomei
laomei's picture

Because it takes pretty much zero time to download, you get the quality you want and you can watch it offline anytime you want, delete it when you want and download it again if you want.  It also costs nothing.  No ads, no policies, no restrictions, no fees, no credit cards, no billing, no rate hikes, no region blocking, etc.  It's pretty nice.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 09:59 | Link to Comment j0nx
j0nx's picture

It's quite noticeable on my FIOS connection how slow netflix has become. We are about to lock horns over it as I consider it to be breach of contract on their part and will cancel my service and move to Comcast who so far is not throttling. These guys need to come to some kind of agreement but I consider $170 a month paid to Verizon ample cash for them to provide me a satisfactory experience for the 3 or 4 times a month I watch netflix.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:02 | Link to Comment Johnny Cocknballs
Johnny Cocknballs's picture

I find it hard to believe Netflix uses more road than Youtube, or for that matter YouPorn.

In any event, in a way, there is a good argument for charging hogs more, but in another, more accurate way, this is just the first step to making certain websites hard or impossible to load.

 

Just think - "Do I ever go to a website, that Joe Lieberman wished did not exist?"

Those, basically, are some of the sites that, ultimately, will disappear. 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:05 | Link to Comment ejmoosa
ejmoosa's picture

How many times does the broadband companies want to be paid for the traffic?

I am paying for it, it counts against my monthly allotment and now they want Netflix to pay as well?

If that is the case, they need to drastically reduce my bill.  Because I cannot get what I am paying for.

 

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:07 | Link to Comment Rising Sun
Rising Sun's picture

LMFAO!!!!

 

Google was toyed with by the owners of the backbone 10 years ago and then went out and spent billions on their own network.

 

Good luck building your own network netflix.

 

Interesting how bit tor  r ent shows up in the lists.  Hmmmmmmm.....

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:41 | Link to Comment CaptainSpaulding
CaptainSpaulding's picture

Time to break out my Columbo DVDs. No bandwith needed

http://thiswastv.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/peter_falk_columbo_2.png

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:09 | Link to Comment centerline
centerline's picture

Awesome.  Keep jacking the prices and making the services suck more and more.  Go ahead and wreck part of the circuses that keep the masses numb.  

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:11 | Link to Comment viator
viator's picture

Youtube gets throttled constantly by my provider even though I am paying extra each month for higher speed. Routinely unwatchable. I find both Amazon and Netflix streaming stumbling and the program I am streaming gets interrupted to tell me that it can no longer be provided in HD. Again I pay extra to both services for HD.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:12 | Link to Comment TrustbutVerify
TrustbutVerify's picture

Improve the cable infrastructure. We're definitely paying enough already to have the best.  Fiber to the home.  

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 16:00 | Link to Comment j0nx
j0nx's picture

Uhh FIOS IS fiber to the home and Verizon is massively throttling netflix bandwidth. They are being paid by the customer for bandwidth and for services and are not fullfilling their contract to customers. Netflix is making a living off of pushing their expenses off to the ISP. Both sides are wrong and the customer gets the shaft. Netflix should pay Verizon and Comcast and other ISPs for carrying their water. Netflix should raise their monthly fees and let the chips fall where they may. I already pay Verizon more than enough money for them to deliver me a quality service without childish corporate antics between them and Netflix.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:14 | Link to Comment pupdog1
pupdog1's picture

My NFLX has been clunky of late, despite my high speed line. I guess Time Warner is the reason.

Over the past several years, filthy fucking Time Warner cable has almost quadrupled the price of my high speed Internet line, and cut the speed in half.

And, they now they charge me $6/month for an outdated modem that I was told came free with the service when I first signed on

TWC is a criminal operation and their customer service is outright fraud.

I cut the cable TV line long ago--there are now tons of free channels on free digital TV. All you need is a $20 digital antenna. Perfect reception unless you are in the middle of nowhere (then it can pixelate a bit). Lots of movie channels are now available, retro channels, weather, local stations... forced TV digital conversion is one of the incredibly few things the feds got right. Why pay these monkeys $100/month for shit?

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:14 | Link to Comment 22winmag
22winmag's picture

Chronic problems the last two weeks despite having the fatest available cable internet package.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:44 | Link to Comment withglee
withglee's picture

It's time for a mesh network, ATM based at layer 2 with virtual connections (rather than IP hopping). Done right, there is no need for carriers and capacity increases directly with load ... a nice feature at sporting events and rock concerts.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:53 | Link to Comment dynomutt
dynomutt's picture

THIS

 

Grassroots Internet

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 10:47 | Link to Comment zipit
zipit's picture

Torrents, bitchez.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:04 | Link to Comment drendebe10
drendebe10's picture

Its Bush's fault.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:12 | Link to Comment moneybots
moneybots's picture

"The bottleneck has made Netflix unwatchable"

 

The internet wasn't built for this sort of thing.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:43 | Link to Comment XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

It was built to facilitate communication of information. It was Comcast and Verizon that neglected their infrastructure for a decade.

Wed, 02/19/2014 - 11:30 | Link to Comment novictim
novictim's picture

We the People own the avenues and by ways of our cable infrastructure.  Get a clue, ZH.

Typical of Zero Hedge, the posters here simply accept that their local MONOPOLY CABLE CARRIER has the right to do to them what ever it wants.

ZH walks away from the concept of NET NEUTRALITY even while the super majority of AMERICANS think the cable companies should not be able to levy extortionate fees on any internet service and certainly not be able to discriminate.

 

Much of this horrible court ruling is the result of the FCC with its abundance of Republican minded opportunistic-for-a-CableCo-Payout-job members.  Change the FCC into a body that is proConsumer and then we will see properly fought protections for the rights of cable subscribers.

BTW: What if the cable company just did not like the internet content provided by a company?  What if it did not like that companies politics or "morality"?  See where this can go?

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!