Hacker News Reader

Well, there are two problems with that scenario.

1) There may not be other services in the area - or all services throttle. Your only solution is to move house.

2) The user may not realise it is their ISP which is the problem. "NetFlix sucks - it's so slow. But TimeWarnerCastPlayer is awesome - it's so fast!"

NetFlix isn't "squeezing" anyone. Customers are requesting data through their ISP, NetFlix are sending it as asked.

Netflix has an ISP tracker on their site that shows performance by ISP. Trust me, if they know your ISP is a "throttler" they have the ways to get this in front of you and highlight "Hey you're having a crappy experience because you're using X and they throttle us. Y wants your business and will give you a $150 coupon to change. Click here now"

Y may want my business, but Y isn't available at my address.

I had no idea someone could be this naive. WE'RE AT THE MERCY OF AN OLIGOPOLY. THEY HAVE MEETINGS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO COLLECTIVELY RAISE THEIR PRICES AND PROVIDE MINIMUM SERVICE. THEY CAN FUCK US AS MUCH AS THEY WANT, AND WE CAN'T DO SHIT BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY COMPETITION. THERE ISN'T ANY COMPETITION BECAUSE THE BARRIER TO ENTRY FOR A NEW ISP IS SO HIGH THAT IT IS LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE; EXCEPT FOR COMPANIES WITH THE RESOURCES COMPARABLE TO GOOGLE. ONLY FUCKING GOOGLE.

Jesus Christ. I can't believe you are savvy enough to pay for your own internet service and you don't realize this.

oh my all caps on HN. I guess there really is no where safe on the Internet.

Sorry, man.

>people would leave that ISP for another one that didn't throttle Netflix

That assumes people have a choice for their ISP.

If I want high speed internet I have two choices. Both of them are huge national companies.

If they decide to go the throttle route, where do I go?

>Secondly, why are they throttling this service? Because they can't charge effectively for it.

That's an interesting take considering how they offered a product at a certain bandwidth and I agreed to pay for that bandwidth. If I use it to capacity, the services I receive from third parties are somehow 'exploiting' the model? I don't think so.

If the post office offers to ship anything under 10lbs for a flat rate, is a company taking advantage if they offer, say, a 10 lbs cheese of the month package using that USPS service?

There is an important distinction you are failing on.

"NetFlix is responsible for 30% + of evening internet traffic"

This is false. Netflix is not responsible for the traffic usage. PEOPLE WHO WATCH NETFLIX are responsible for this traffic.

I also think you are incorrect on the "all you can eat" pricing. Of course, I am not privy to the actual business deal that Netflix has with their internet provider... but I very much doubt that they have unlimited bandwidth. They, like their customers, are most likely paying for how much they use.

> leave that ISP

There's your flaw. Most people have 0, 1, or 2 choices for ISP. And those ISPs offer similarly sucky service.

Compare US bandwidth rates to modern countries, and you'll see that the US businesses are not in any way competing with each other to the benefit of the consumer.

Most people in the US don't have a choice in their ISP.

Interesting. That's news to me. The majority of people in the US really only have one choice?

Somewhat. Most people in the US only have a choice between the specific type of line they use (Cable, DSL, Satellite). There are typically only one provider for either Cable or DSL in an area, and you're not even guaranteed to have an option between either.

I'm really struggling with this concept. I've lived in 3 different metro areas in the US and always had more than one option. I can see it for rural areas but in terms of % of population. Can't find anything definitive on the internet though.

I've lived in three metro areas, and only one had significant choices in provider, and that was a decade ago, 2004. I had the choice of three cable providers, and I was just on the edge of a local ISP's service area so I was able to get a decent price and great service.

I lived in northern Bothell, in Seattle, and I had one ADSL provider (not even 'fast' DSL) and one cable provider to choose from. In the metro area I live in currently, I've had exactly one DSL and one cable provider, and I've moved across the city and the variety didn't change.

How is it squeezing out other traffic? A packet is a packet, under the net neutrality model all packets are routed equally. Capping packet flow from a provider would be like Subaru owning chunks of the national highway and setting a limit on the number of Toyotas that are allowed to be driving at a time. If Verizon doesn't have the capacity to support the evening demand, they should increase their shitty infrastructure so they can deliver the service that they sold to their customers.

And what if I want to compete with netflix myself? They have the cash to make a deal with Verizon, I don't.

Most networks see a degradation in performance at peak times. That reduction in performance can result in all types of behavior. You may not watch a clip, may click away from a site etc that's loading too slowly (and that would otherwise load fine and capture your view a few hours earlier)

> people would leave that ISP for another one that didn't throttle Netflix.

Haha.

We dumped TWC for ATT because of constant timeouts when trying to access movies on demand at peak times.

It's simple. NetFlix is already paying for that traffic. The users are already paying to get access to the Internet. The ISPs are trying to make complicated arguments so that they can get away with charging the same traffic twice.

Verizon has special right of way access for its fiber cables and should be regulated as such. I can't change ISPs and the ISP is only able to exist because of exemptions from City, State and Federal governments.