I know some websites (like ESPN3) only allow you access if you're on a subscribing ISP.
Could Netflix take a play out of that book and charge a different rate for Comcast customers vs others, and in particular, make it enough of a PR issue that other ISPs would be more willing to cave?
Netflix shouldn't have caved and should have displayed a simple graphic about the slowness in their player along with the number for Comcast support. Displace the anger and support issues around the slowdown to the proper party, the one that's at fault. Cost them some customers.
Of course, the problem with that is that Comcast has a monopoly in many areas they serve. Just like Time Warner does. And folks simply can't switch. So, even though Comcast's customer satisfaction rates are absolutely abysmal, they don't lose customers over it.
Your solution would make more sense. Netflix should charge Comcast customers more and itemize it on the bills as a 'Comcast Network Slowdown Tax'.
Definitely an interesting idea, retaliating in the same spirit. But would it help Netflix? Switching costs for ISPs are higher than switching costs for streaming services (like Netflix or Amazon), not just in terms of dollars but time and hassle. I don't know that many people would be willing to switch ISPs just because Netflix costs a bit more. And in some areas, Comcast is the only ISP.
Nothing spurs innovation more than a challenge. Maybe we'll see it with large-scale peer-to-peer technology that Netflix may help innovate to respond to higher streaming costs, or it may be an opportunity for an different ISP model to enter the market or expand their existing footprint (like Google).
The dependency of the Internet on a small number of ISPs is an anachronistic, unsustainable requirement. When the Internet was first starting, they were necessary to lay cable and maintain network infrastructure. As a nice consequence of building the infrastructure, the ISPs got to charge for routing traffic as well. But this makes no sense. Why should the ISP's have so much bandwidth routing power?
Routing inherently lends itself to decentralized algorithms, and the research is starting to catch up to the ISP's. Mesh networks are growing in popularity, and once they reach a critical mass they will be unstoppable. Expect to see a rise of reliance on mesh networking in universities and urban centers.
BitCoin is going to revolutionize bandwidth routing. In decentralized routing algorithms, payment for bandwidth is a difficult problem to solve because it depends on centralized components of the system. But BitCoin enables 1) micropayments, and 2) distributed transaction storage, which both benefit bandwidth routing research. Some point soon, routing will be completely decentralized, and the infrastructure providers will receive micropayments of BitCoin in return.
As my senior thesis, I'm researching "TorCoin," a proof-of-bandwidth cryptocurrency mined by transmitting bandwidth over the Tor network. This summer I am working to apply this research in a business environment. If any of this interests you, definitely reach out to me and we'll schedule a chat: [email protected]
Planet Money recently did a really great show [1] about the ISP routing power in the US vs. other countries, and what led to those decisions. The irony is that they were doing everything they could to not be anachronistic, and to plan for the future. The US chose poorly. Anyway, it's worth a listen.
IMHO I think the best response to that would be for Netflix to charge the ISPs that want to carry their service. Reverse subscription if you will. The demand is there, ISPs would be reluctant to alienate the customers even more.
This is what happens when there is an effective monopoly and it is applied.
But seeing as how Windows roamed free for decades, the US doesn't seem to have any problem with huge monopolies.
[+] [-] lotharbot|12 years ago|reply
Could Netflix take a play out of that book and charge a different rate for Comcast customers vs others, and in particular, make it enough of a PR issue that other ISPs would be more willing to cave?
[+] [-] JohnTHaller|12 years ago|reply
Of course, the problem with that is that Comcast has a monopoly in many areas they serve. Just like Time Warner does. And folks simply can't switch. So, even though Comcast's customer satisfaction rates are absolutely abysmal, they don't lose customers over it.
Your solution would make more sense. Netflix should charge Comcast customers more and itemize it on the bills as a 'Comcast Network Slowdown Tax'.
[+] [-] jrog|12 years ago|reply
Nothing spurs innovation more than a challenge. Maybe we'll see it with large-scale peer-to-peer technology that Netflix may help innovate to respond to higher streaming costs, or it may be an opportunity for an different ISP model to enter the market or expand their existing footprint (like Google).
[+] [-] chatmasta|12 years ago|reply
Routing inherently lends itself to decentralized algorithms, and the research is starting to catch up to the ISP's. Mesh networks are growing in popularity, and once they reach a critical mass they will be unstoppable. Expect to see a rise of reliance on mesh networking in universities and urban centers.
BitCoin is going to revolutionize bandwidth routing. In decentralized routing algorithms, payment for bandwidth is a difficult problem to solve because it depends on centralized components of the system. But BitCoin enables 1) micropayments, and 2) distributed transaction storage, which both benefit bandwidth routing research. Some point soon, routing will be completely decentralized, and the infrastructure providers will receive micropayments of BitCoin in return.
As my senior thesis, I'm researching "TorCoin," a proof-of-bandwidth cryptocurrency mined by transmitting bandwidth over the Tor network. This summer I am working to apply this research in a business environment. If any of this interests you, definitely reach out to me and we'll schedule a chat: [email protected]
[+] [-] endersshadow|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/04/04/299060527/episode-...
[+] [-] foobarqux|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DemiGuru|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scottkduncan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldcode|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gepsens|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morgante|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ymichael|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unfamiliar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imroot|12 years ago|reply
Really, Washington Post?!
[+] [-] gnoway|12 years ago|reply
I kind of assumed it was one of those 'correct grammar' things like 'an historical' that looks wrong but isn't.