Netflix Chief Reed Hastings Rages Against Internet Tolls, Makes Case For Net Neutrality

rated by 0 users
This post has 3 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,345
Points 1,191,230
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Fri, Mar 21 2014 10:09 AM
After reading through the latest rhetoric by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, you get the feeling that he views his company's recent deal with Comcast as essentially sleeping with the enemy. The multi-year agreement ensures that Comcast subscribers will enjoy higher quality Netflix streams and less buffering, but Hastings warns that if left unchecked, ISPs will be free to charge increasingly higher interconnection fees to third-party services.

From the vantage point of where Hastings is sitting, these types of fees are nothing more than an "arbitrary tax" imposed by companies that are free to levy them because of their position in the market place. This puts companies like Netflix in an awkward position -- they can either take a stand and refuse to pay a higher rate, or give in to the ISP's demands so that streaming customers aren't the ones being punished.

Netflix Building

"Netflix believes strong net neutrality is critical, but in the near term we will in cases pay the toll to the powerful ISPs to protect our consumer experience. When we do so, we don’t pay for priority access against competitors, just for interconnection," Hastings explained in a blog post. "A few weeks ago, we agreed to pay Comcast and our members are now getting a good experience again. Comcast has been an industry leader in supporting weak net neutrality, and we hope they’ll support strong net neutrality as well."

The counter-argument against Netflix is that its streaming service accounts for nearly a third of peak residential Internet traffic. With that being the case, ISPs believe it's only fair for Netflix to share in their costs.

ISP Interconnect

"But they don't also offer for Netflix or similar services to share in the ISPs revenue, so cost-sharing makes no sense," Hastings added. "When an ISP sells a consumer a 10 or 50 megabits-per-second Internet package, the consumer should get that rate, no matter where the data is coming from."

Hastings is careful not to direct his feelings specifically at Comcast, though it's clear he isn't happy with the way things turned out. Towards the end of his blog post, Hastings laments that "Some big IPS are extracting a toll because they can," which probably sums up his feelings about the deal Netflix had to sign with Comcast.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 100
Points 660
Joined: Sep 2012

so that 'deal' he signed is a bad thing now, should have thought that through a bit more then. huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html?_r=0

this and the handing over the web services to ICANN looks to be a fail. (NSA or other such snopes) Will the Inter-webs survive?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 5
Joined: Jun 2013
Location: New Jersey
David replied on Sat, Mar 22 2014 10:45 PM

I hate to say it but in the US this needs Congressional action to get this into the FCC's purview again. Net neutrality here was basically killed because the FCC's mandate was seen as too broad and was written with antiquated understanding of what the net was to become and with an understanding of how dependent we are on the cable companies which have monopolies in the US. In my town if you want resonable speeds you have one option except for the areas where Verizon is available. There is no competition I'm purposely ignoring cellular because it's futile to stream video .

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (4 items) | RSS