Hacker News Reader

Comment by himom | Hacker News Reader

What are you smoking? Google (YouTube), Netflix, Facebook, etc. wants access to as many eyeballs (and their bandwidth) as possible. Having either them or their eyeballs having to pay for access eats into their profits.

View on HN

tbrock is right. When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that makes it extremely difficult for new companies to come in and disrupt you.

Netflix is still interested in net neutrality because they are not as dominant and because they will face competition from ISPs who are also content providers now. Comcast owns NBC Universal.

In fact, this loss of net neutrality would have been less dangerous if ISPs were just pipes trying to make more money rather than also being content companies.

> When you're an established entrenched player like Google or Facebook, paying ISPs for distribution is a small price to pay for a moat that makes it extremely difficult for new companies to come in and disrupt you.

See Netflix and VZ PNIs saga a few years ago for proof.

> Netflix is still interested in net neutrality because they are not as dominant and because they will face competition from ISPs who are also content providers now. Comcast owns NBC Universal.

No, Netflix is not interested in NN - see it paying for VZ transit to just VZ, i.e. buying access.

Long time ago, in a galaxy far away there was a CTO ran company that fought for NN well before it was fashionable. The company's name was AboveNet and CTO's name was Dave Rand. The company carried a large percentage of the Internet traffic at the time and he would still play hardball with the likes of Sprint, DT, UUNET/MCI worldcom etc.

From that point on not a single company that claimed or currently claims to be supporter of NN has not even tried to put its money where its mouth is.

[Edit: after the downvotes ] Really? Google is your friend.

http://time.com/2838570/verizon-netflix-feud-streaming-speed...

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netfl...

http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/netflix-agrees-to-pay-v...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/06533327927/level...

[Another edit: since some people would point that they called it peering ] Paying transit rates to access only routes originated by the AS group of VZ is not peering - it is transit.

Google, Netflix, etc. have leverage in a negotiation with Comcast: if Comcast tries to shake them down, they can say "no," then advertise that Comcast subscribers can't use Google, Netflix, etc., and people will leave Comcast in droves. Joe's Random Video Streaming Service has absolutely no leverage against Comcast, so Comcast can charge JRVSS whatever it wants, creating a nice moat for Google, Netflix, etc.

> people will leave Comcast in droves

At least those with a choice, which I'm guessing isn't the majority of people. Comcast pays my building to ensure that no other ISPs are allowed in the building. That's very common, at least where I am.

Is this a special case in law or just known bribery or .. even plain normal ?

ps: the NN FCC thing got me curious, how much the web would be different if we had to pay. Even a small fee for things like google.

It's pretty normal. My town has its own ISP. But they're not allowed to provide service outside certain zones, because Comcast already provides service there.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2016/mar/15/h...

So... the government is protecting the corporations’ territory agains the people?

How is that free market or even capitalism?

It's certainly not a free market. Cities commonly provide exclusive franchise to specific companies. I've got Cox internet and access to Cox cable. AT&T provides phone service, but not any kind of internet access. My access options are Cox, mobile, or satellite. Mobile and satellite obviously have much smaller max transfers per month; they wouldn't cover my requirements for household internet.

Capitalism simply means the government doesn't own the infrastructure and provide the service to use that infra. It is not free market in terms of it being a competitive market. It is a free market if you think "free" means unregulated (or less regulated).

But it's a shift of the goal post to consider free markets as unregulated ones. It was for a long time well understood that good regulation ensures competitive markets. Or when there can be no competition, to have highly regulated monopolies to in effect legislate the outcome that most people who are politically active want.

Who said we have a free market? It is capitalism, because ISPs are using their financial leverage to their best interests.

it's consolidated free market. #rimshot

I live in NYC, the city is basically sliced and diced by the internet providers. Every apartment I've had I haven't had a choice.

So why isn't anything done about this? This seems like a bigger issue than net neutrality to me.

This has been an issue since MaBell.

It's not a special case in law, it's allowed because the U.S. does not have particularly strong competition law (anti-trust) compared to the EU or pretty much anywhere.

US split up Bell (and maybe Microsoft ? can't recall) that's something

Leave Comcast... for what exactly? Take Downtown Boston for example: Comcast is the only residential provider available. You can get RCN in some outer neighborhoods.

This is a situation that plays out all over the country.

It o Loveyou do they already have a near-monopoly on the vast majority of costumer-dense territory, they’ve also been very successful at pushing through laws that outlaw competition at the municipal and county level. In other words, if you don’t already have a choice, and you have lots of neighbors, you are very, very unlikely to get a choice any time soon.

Comcast has a monopoly position in many, many parts of the United States.

This is why I recently dumped Comcast for a local provider (Common.net). I'm fortunate enough to be in the Bay Area, so I do have a choice. So I feel it's incumbent on me to vote with my dollars. I encourage all of you who are able to do likewise.

A loud message needs to be sent to Comcast. Now. And tell them why you are canceling service.

Can't cancel Comcast. My building HOA has an exclusive contract. They came peddling a cheap TV and internet plan in exchange for a 3 year contract for every resident getting billed for it. And a plurality voted for it. Sucks.

Ask your lawyer if you can sue them over it.

Sounds like a great way to get your rent raised by the legal maximum every single time in the future.

Netflix and other companies are paying Comcast and other ISPs, so I guess they don't have as much leverage as you think.

In most markets, the customer only has one option, or two bad options.

specifically, do this in the parts of the US where there are multiple providers... even losing 10% of their subscribers would hurt a lot.

Example: at my apartment, I've got a choice of Sonic, Webpass, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and possibly others. It would be effortless for Facebook/Amazon/Netflix/etc (FAANG) to post ads showing the speed difference, offer me N free months to ride-out my contract, then I'd switch.

5G is also a game-changer, since in theory it replaces wire-lines.

My secret hope is that a consortium of major content providers pools their capital and buys a major telco to ensure open access. They could also do sophisticated things with security and software routing.

FAANG market caps: 2700B

Apple 900B Google 700B Amazon 550B Facebook 500B Netflix 90B

Telco market caps: 500B

Verizon 191B AT&T 213B T-Mobile 50B Sprint 24B

What makes you think that such a consortium would ensure open access rather than simply privileging its own services?

Dang. I've got a choice of Cox, mobile, or satellite; no other wired providers in my area. And Cox costs around 1.5x what it did 7 years ago when I moved in. They claim that they're also providing double the speed, but my tests don't bear that out.

Where? I'm going to bet large sums of money that the vast majority of Comcast subscribers have no real alternative.

Pay-for-access would allow Google et al to keep your eyeballs, while blocking competitors who want your eyeballs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com