If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Netflix execs have apparently never read 'If You Give a Mouse a Cookie'   (bbc.com) divider line 66
    More: Sad, Netflix, CEO Reed Hastings  
•       •       •

5100 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Jul 2014 at 12:10 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-30 09:25:37 AM  
They should so something about my very long wait movies.
 
2014-07-30 10:05:54 AM  
They actually have the power and subscriber base (especially since we all know they'd love to go all streaming and just can't right now due to both quality and quantity issues) ... why are they doing this? They could be fighting for themselves as well as the rest of us, and negotiating with the very limited providers is just encouraging them. Damnit. I wanted to believe Netflix would lead the charge for the rest of us.
 
2014-07-30 10:14:56 AM  

serpent_sky: They actually have the power and subscriber base (especially since we all know they'd love to go all streaming and just can't right now due to both quality and quantity issues) ... why are they doing this? They could be fighting for themselves as well as the rest of us, and negotiating with the very limited providers is just encouraging them. Damnit. I wanted to believe Netflix would lead the charge for the rest of us.


Maybe they figure it will keep start-ups out of their turf.  That's worth a little extortion money.
 
2014-07-30 10:50:04 AM  
In the nineties we invented the greatest human communication tool since the printing press: the internet

Less than 20 years later we have a national debate on "should we fark up the internet or not"

Pathetic.
 
2014-07-30 11:31:39 AM  

EvilEgg: Maybe they figure it will keep start-ups out of their turf. That's worth a little extortion money.


I doubt they have much to worry about; there are some things that are just hard to knock out of business.  Netflix is known, convenient and generally has a good reputation. Much like "Google it", "Netflix it" or "I'll wait for Netflix" has become common vernacular. There may be others, but people aren't flocking to them, especially since Netflix generally has very good customer relations in most people's experiences.
Nobody says "Amazon Prime it" any more than they say "Bing it".
 
2014-07-30 12:14:16 PM  
...the mouse will eat it and shiat all over your house.

No, I didn't read the book either.
 
2014-07-30 12:16:27 PM  
You should never give anyone a cookie. Especially a hooker. Next thing you know you are spraying with the garden hose to stop them from tweaking out on the garage roof.
 
2014-07-30 12:27:39 PM  
First it is a small bribe...

Then a "loan'....

Then giving up a board seat or three...

It never ends well.
 
2014-07-30 12:29:03 PM  
Whatever you do, don't try to give a moose a muffin. They won't get the humor, and they're grouchy assholes.
 
2014-07-30 12:36:24 PM  

Another Government Employee: First it is a small bribe...


This looks more like ransom than a bribe.
 
2014-07-30 12:37:28 PM  

serpent_sky: They actually have the power and subscriber base (especially since we all know they'd love to go all streaming and just can't right now due to both quality and quantity issues) ... why are they doing this? They could be fighting for themselves as well as the rest of us, and negotiating with the very limited providers is just encouraging them. Damnit. I wanted to believe Netflix would lead the charge for the rest of us.


I wonder if it's because the telecoms are also owned by some of the content producers? Get in a pissing match with Time Warner Cable, lose all those Cartoon Network, TNT, TBS, and CW series.

Likewise, Netflix wouldn't have jumped on this if they also didn't get something out of it. Make good with AT&T broadband, get a deal for Netflix to be a forced app on AT&T's mobile phones to get more subscribers?

dolphkhan: Whatever you do, don't try to give a moose a muffin. They won't get the humor, and they're grouchy assholes.


Tell me about it. They get really pissed when they're submerged in water and your kayak gets stuck in their antlers.

/swear I was airborne for at least three full seconds after that
 
2014-07-30 12:37:54 PM  

serpent_sky: They actually have the power and subscriber base (especially since we all know they'd love to go all streaming and just can't right now due to both quality and quantity issues) ... why are they doing this? They could be fighting for themselves as well as the rest of us, and negotiating with the very limited providers is just encouraging them. Damnit. I wanted to believe Netflix would lead the charge for the rest of us.


Netflix applied the formula. Basically pick the cheaper of two options.

1. Sue and fight in court for years while bleeding consumer base to others
2. Pay a little now and keep making money hand over fist while keeping startups without deep pockets off their grass.
 
2014-07-30 12:48:38 PM  

clkeagle: I wonder if it's because the telecoms are also owned by some of the content producers? Get in a pissing match with Time Warner Cable, lose all those Cartoon Network, TNT, TBS, and CW series.


TWC has been divorced from TimeWarner for a few years now (and will likely be even more so if Comcast succeeds in buying TWC and/or Fox succeeds in merging with TimeWarner). Comcast is still vertical as all hell, though.
 
2014-07-30 12:51:56 PM  
To say nothing of "If You Give a Hooker a Hamilton."
 
2014-07-30 12:54:29 PM  
www.writeyourscreenplay.com
 
2014-07-30 12:56:00 PM  

serpent_sky: They actually have the power and subscriber base (especially since we all know they'd love to go all streaming and just can't right now due to both quality and quantity issues) ... why are they doing this? They could be fighting for themselves as well as the rest of us, and negotiating with the very limited providers is just encouraging them. Damnit. I wanted to believe Netflix would lead the charge for the rest of us.


Maybe they can afford it and are hoping their competitors can't or will refuse to pay up, giving them a big advantage.
 
2014-07-30 01:16:10 PM  
 
2014-07-30 01:46:17 PM  

Mad_Radhu: "The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works."

[www.wired.com image 850x637]


The peering argument is a moot point in cases like this. Say Netflix peers with Level 3 and Level 3 peers with Verizon. Then Verizon turns around and refuses to accept added traffic from Level 3 to their subscriber network by biatching about Netflix, a bottleneck develops and Verizon's customers start getting pissed off.

It's immaterial where the extra traffic causing the bottleneck originates in that argument because the REQUEST for it is coming from Verizon's subscribers. It's not as if Netflix just suddenly decided to start inundating Verizon's subscriber network for no reason, Verizon's customers ASKED for that traffic. If Verizon doesn't want to deliver it, that's their problem, and it's not Netflix's fault.

They promised me "up to" so many Mbps throughput and 250 GB of transfer a month. If I decide to go from using 10% to 90% of that all of a sudden, exactly what I'm using it for and where that data originates is a moot point. I'm simply seeking to use my capacity. If Verizon isn't delivering that and they're refusing to work on making that happen, it's entirely their fault.
 
2014-07-30 01:49:14 PM  

Mad_Radhu: "The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works."

[www.wired.com image 850x637]


The thing is, that illustration only really applies to the big players.. which are specifically NOT the ones we're generally concerned about when discussing net neutrality.

Now, for the specific matter at hand, Netflix IS one of the big players, but the optics of paying ransom are all wrong. They all-too-readily pay the ISPs while loudly grumbling about neutrality to the public. Part of the problem, imo.
 
2014-07-30 02:01:19 PM  

serpent_sky: EvilEgg: Maybe they figure it will keep start-ups out of their turf. That's worth a little extortion money.

I doubt they have much to worry about; there are some things that are just hard to knock out of business.  Netflix is known, convenient and generally has a good reputation. Much like "Google it", "Netflix it" or "I'll wait for Netflix" has become common vernacular. There may be others, but people aren't flocking to them, especially since Netflix generally has very good customer relations in most people's experiences.
Nobody says "Amazon Prime it" any more than they say "Bing it".


I use Prime and Hulu
 
2014-07-30 02:09:01 PM  

serpent_sky: They actually have the power and subscriber base (especially since we all know they'd love to go all streaming and just can't right now due to both quality and quantity issues) ... why are they doing this? They could be fighting for themselves as well as the rest of us, and negotiating with the very limited providers is just encouraging them. Damnit. I wanted to believe Netflix would lead the charge for the rest of us.


Maybe they know that net neutrality is about to die.
 
2014-07-30 02:13:05 PM  

The Bestest: Mad_Radhu: "The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works."

[www.wired.com image 850x637]

The thing is, that illustration only really applies to the big players.. which are specifically NOT the ones we're generally concerned about when discussing net neutrality.

Now, for the specific matter at hand, Netflix IS one of the big players, but the optics of paying ransom are all wrong. They all-too-readily pay the ISPs while loudly grumbling about neutrality to the public. Part of the problem, imo.



But at the same time, a smaller player doesn't have the same sort of bandwidth issues that a Netflix does. A small player will generally have a smaller customer base, so starting out they are probably going to be using a hosted solution like Amazon AWS which allows them to scale quickly and cheaply, which is going to be tied into their Cloudfront CDN, so you have the 800 pound gorilla of Amazon working for them to ensure Quality of Service. Medium sized players may have more of an issue, but the little guy is generally not big enough to get grief from Comcast or Verizon over their bandwidth usage.
 
2014-07-30 02:18:45 PM  

skozlaw: Mad_Radhu: "The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works."

[www.wired.com image 850x637]

The peering argument is a moot point in cases like this. Say Netflix peers with Level 3 and Level 3 peers with Verizon. Then Verizon turns around and refuses to accept added traffic from Level 3 to their subscriber network by biatching about Netflix, a bottleneck develops and Verizon's customers start getting pissed off.

It's immaterial where the extra traffic causing the bottleneck originates in that argument because the REQUEST for it is coming from Verizon's subscribers. It's not as if Netflix just suddenly decided to start inundating Verizon's subscriber network for no reason, Verizon's customers ASKED for that traffic. If Verizon doesn't want to deliver it, that's their problem, and it's not Netflix's fault.

They promised me "up to" so many Mbps throughput and 250 GB of transfer a month. If I decide to go from using 10% to 90% of that all of a sudden, exactly what I'm using it for and where that data originates is a moot point. I'm simply seeking to use my capacity. If Verizon isn't delivering that and they're refusing to work on making that happen, it's entirely their fault.



In that case, I'd say the best way to fight back is for customers like you to call in and complain every time they don't see good bandwidth. Customer care costs them money, and millions of customers calling in to biatch would bleed them dry and cripple their support infrastructure. If you don't like their service, complain and keep complaining until it gets fixed. Pissed off customers can REALLY cause problems if they make a concerted effort to keep their customer service lines lit up.

When I was getting crappy quality on Comcast, I called them every time I was having slow streaming, and made sure to waste as much time of the staff and managers as I could complaining about it.
 
2014-07-30 02:19:15 PM  

serpent_sky: EvilEgg: Maybe they figure it will keep start-ups out of their turf. That's worth a little extortion money.

I doubt they have much to worry about; there are some things that are just hard to knock out of business.  Netflix is known, convenient and generally has a good reputation. Much like "Google it", "Netflix it" or "I'll wait for Netflix" has become common vernacular. There may be others, but people aren't flocking to them, especially since Netflix generally has very good customer relations in most people's experiences.
Nobody says "Amazon Prime it" any more than they say "Bing it".


I've never heard "Netflix it."

I've heard, and used, "go on Netflix" or "check Netflix" but I've never seen Netflix used as a verb.
 
2014-07-30 02:49:21 PM  

Mad_Radhu: skozlaw: Mad_Radhu: "The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works."

[www.wired.com image 850x637]

The peering argument is a moot point in cases like this. Say Netflix peers with Level 3 and Level 3 peers with Verizon. Then Verizon turns around and refuses to accept added traffic from Level 3 to their subscriber network by biatching about Netflix, a bottleneck develops and Verizon's customers start getting pissed off.

It's immaterial where the extra traffic causing the bottleneck originates in that argument because the REQUEST for it is coming from Verizon's subscribers. It's not as if Netflix just suddenly decided to start inundating Verizon's subscriber network for no reason, Verizon's customers ASKED for that traffic. If Verizon doesn't want to deliver it, that's their problem, and it's not Netflix's fault.

They promised me "up to" so many Mbps throughput and 250 GB of transfer a month. If I decide to go from using 10% to 90% of that all of a sudden, exactly what I'm using it for and where that data originates is a moot point. I'm simply seeking to use my capacity. If Verizon isn't delivering that and they're refusing to work on making that happen, it's entirely their fault.


In that case, I'd say the best way to fight back is for customers like you to call in and complain every time they don't see good bandwidth. Customer care costs them money, and millions of customers calling in to biatch would bleed them dry and cripple their support infrastructure. If you don't like their service, complain and keep complaining until it gets fixed. Pissed off customers can REALLY cause problems if they make a concerted effort to keep their customer service lines lit up.

When I was getting crappy quality on Comcast, I called them every time I was having slow streaming, and made sure to waste as much time of the staff and managers as I could complaining about it.


And is it fixed now?

Verizon blames Netflix, Netflix blames Verizon. It's like playing ping pong and you can't explain to Verizon CSRs about how it really is their fault. All they know is how to restart a modem and payday is on Friday.
 
2014-07-30 03:03:31 PM  

Mad_Radhu: In that case, I'd say the best way to fight back is for customers like you to call in and complain every time they don't see good bandwidth. Customer care costs them money, and millions of customers calling in to biatch would bleed them dry and cripple their support infrastructure. If you don't like their service, complain and keep complaining until it gets fixed. Pissed off customers can REALLY cause problems if they make a concerted effort to keep their customer service lines lit up.

When I was getting crappy quality on Comcast, I called them every time I was having slow streaming, and made sure to waste as much time of the staff and managers as I could complaining about it.



Truck roll. Every time you call them.

I got them to fix the shiatshow in one of my apartments but it required me calling support to get another truck rolled before the first tech left in the truck.  The truck guys didn't mind, It was free time off for them, since we all knew management had to approve money being spent to fix it, rather then just re-cutting cables.
 
2014-07-30 03:04:59 PM  

Chevello: And is it fixed now?

Verizon blames Netflix, Netflix blames Verizon. It's like playing ping pong and you can't explain to Verizon CSRs about how it really is their fault. All they know is how to restart a modem and payday is on Friday.


Yeah, once Netflix installed its own servers inside of the Comcast network, everything has been streaming great, when before I could barely get 360p out of House of Cards.

In my case, it probably had very little to do with it because there wasn't a mass call in, but if you organized an online campaign to just hammer Verizon support you could make things a huge pain for them. It would increase wait times, screw with their rep metrics, piss off customers with other complaints and get them even more pissed off. All you have to do is keep playing ping pong and keep escalating to support managers.

If you just crippled their support infrastructure with a sheer volume of calls and complaints, eventually executives would have to reconsider their throttling plan if it is negatively impacting the business in other areas. On person can't do much. Thousands of pissed off people, on the other hand, can bring a company to its knees if they basically DoS their support infrastructure with complaints.
 
2014-07-30 03:10:32 PM  

Mad_Radhu: When I was getting crappy quality on Comcast, I called them every time I was having slow streaming, and made sure to waste as much time of the staff and managers as I could complaining about it.


That will encourage them to do something, but the bandwidth they sold you really only applies within their network.
 
kab
2014-07-30 03:22:44 PM  
Poor, poor AT&T.  I guess when you're only raking in 3.5 billion per quarter in profits, you really can scream POVERTY and double dip on who's paying for your service.
 
2014-07-30 03:34:33 PM  

kab: Poor, poor AT&T.  I guess when you're only raking in 3.5 billion per quarter in profits, you really can scream POVERTY and double dip on who's paying for your service.


Yep. Aren't you glad we gave them all those taxpayer subisdies so they could afford to run fiber to everyone's homes?
 
2014-07-30 03:39:20 PM  

tzzhc4: serpent_sky: They actually have the power and subscriber base (especially since we all know they'd love to go all streaming and just can't right now due to both quality and quantity issues) ... why are they doing this? They could be fighting for themselves as well as the rest of us, and negotiating with the very limited providers is just encouraging them. Damnit. I wanted to believe Netflix would lead the charge for the rest of us.

Netflix applied the formula. Basically pick the cheaper of two options.

1. Sue and fight in court for years while bleeding consumer base to others
2. Pay a little now and keep making money hand over fist while keeping startups without deep pockets off their grass.


Option 3 would be for netflix to tell the ISP's to go fark themselves, and that if any service provider starts throttling the speed for netflix, then the netflix service will no longer be available through that ISP. How many customers would either drop their internet provider or switch to a lower speed package if they couldn't get netflix? I bet a lot, At least enough where netflix should at least have some bargaining power in this situation. I mean is that what TV channels like ESPN do and how they manage to get crazy high subscriber fees out of the cable companies? What would happen if say comcast told ESPN they would no longer carry ESPN in HD?
 
2014-07-30 03:52:16 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Chevello: And is it fixed now?

Verizon blames Netflix, Netflix blames Verizon. It's like playing ping pong and you can't explain to Verizon CSRs about how it really is their fault. All they know is how to restart a modem and payday is on Friday.

Yeah, once Netflix installed its own servers inside of the Comcast network, everything has been streaming great, when before I could barely get 360p out of House of Cards.

In my case, it probably had very little to do with it because there wasn't a mass call in, but if you organized an online campaign to just hammer Verizon support you could make things a huge pain for them. It would increase wait times, screw with their rep metrics, piss off customers with other complaints and get them even more pissed off. All you have to do is keep playing ping pong and keep escalating to support managers.

If you just crippled their support infrastructure with a sheer volume of calls and complaints, eventually executives would have to reconsider their throttling plan if it is negatively impacting the business in other areas. On person can't do much. Thousands of pissed off people, on the other hand, can bring a company to its knees if they basically DoS their support infrastructure with complaints.


That sounds too much like work. Maybe if I win the lottery and have a bunch of free time.
 
2014-07-30 03:56:08 PM  

mechgreg: tzzhc4: serpent_sky: They actually have the power and subscriber base (especially since we all know they'd love to go all streaming and just can't right now due to both quality and quantity issues) ... why are they doing this? They could be fighting for themselves as well as the rest of us, and negotiating with the very limited providers is just encouraging them. Damnit. I wanted to believe Netflix would lead the charge for the rest of us.

Netflix applied the formula. Basically pick the cheaper of two options.

1. Sue and fight in court for years while bleeding consumer base to others
2. Pay a little now and keep making money hand over fist while keeping startups without deep pockets off their grass.

Option 3 would be for netflix to tell the ISP's to go fark themselves, and that if any service provider starts throttling the speed for netflix, then the netflix service will no longer be available through that ISP. How many customers would either drop their internet provider or switch to a lower speed package if they couldn't get netflix? I bet a lot, At least enough where netflix should at least have some bargaining power in this situation. I mean is that what TV channels like ESPN do and how they manage to get crazy high subscriber fees out of the cable companies? What would happen if say comcast told ESPN they would no longer carry ESPN in HD?


That only works if you have more than one ISP in your area.  My area, the only option is Comcast.  A lot of areas are like that.
 
2014-07-30 03:56:54 PM  

mechgreg: tzzhc4: serpent_sky: They actually have the power and subscriber base (especially since we all know they'd love to go all streaming and just can't right now due to both quality and quantity issues) ... why are they doing this? They could be fighting for themselves as well as the rest of us, and negotiating with the very limited providers is just encouraging them. Damnit. I wanted to believe Netflix would lead the charge for the rest of us.

Netflix applied the formula. Basically pick the cheaper of two options.

1. Sue and fight in court for years while bleeding consumer base to others
2. Pay a little now and keep making money hand over fist while keeping startups without deep pockets off their grass.

Option 3 would be for netflix to tell the ISP's to go fark themselves, and that if any service provider starts throttling the speed for netflix, then the netflix service will no longer be available through that ISP. How many customers would either drop their internet provider or switch to a lower speed package if they couldn't get netflix? I bet a lot, At least enough where netflix should at least have some bargaining power in this situation. I mean is that what TV channels like ESPN do and how they manage to get crazy high subscriber fees out of the cable companies? What would happen if say comcast told ESPN they would no longer carry ESPN in HD?


Drop my ISP (Comcast) and go where?

Windstream? (Waits for laughter to die down)
DSL? (Not available in my area)
That leaves dial up, and I'm not even sure they exist anymore.
 
2014-07-30 03:59:34 PM  

Chevello: That sounds too much like work. Maybe if I win the lottery and have a bunch of free time.


Yeah, it takes some work, but you really can't get anything fixed without it. Plus, if you get a big enough group you really don't have to spend too much time at it. 30 mins on a call times thousands of people in an organized manner could create all sorts of problems for them. It's probably surprisingly easy to take a big company like Verizon or Comcast and really hurt them with the death of a thousand cuts just because the customer base is so huge. It'd be like a Kickstarter of misery.
 
2014-07-30 04:01:32 PM  

Mad_Radhu: In that case, I'd say the best way to fight back is for customers like you to call in and complain every time they don't see good bandwidth. Customer care costs them money, and millions of customers calling in to biatch would bleed them dry and cripple their support infrastructure. If you don't like their service, complain and keep complaining until it gets fixed. Pissed off customers can REALLY cause problems if they make a concerted effort to keep their customer service lines lit up.

When I was getting crappy quality on Comcast, I called them every time I was having slow streaming, and made sure to waste as much time of the staff and managers as I could complaining about it.


Screw that.  My time is more valuable than that.  I only got 12.5 down for DSL and I'm completely fine with that.  Streaming Netflix has never been a problem for me even if I'm streaming that on the TV and watching videos on my laptop at the same time.

And DSL has higher speeds if you really need it, but try to figure out if you really need it first.  Fark isn't going to load noticably faster.  Maybe if you do a lot of torrents or have several people in the household who all want to stream at the same time you need more speed.

Talking to customer service is just frustrating.
 
2014-07-30 04:01:37 PM  
i1182.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-30 04:03:36 PM  
Why? I never had any problems with Netflix on Uverse
 
2014-07-30 04:12:29 PM  

gfid: Mad_Radhu: In that case, I'd say the best way to fight back is for customers like you to call in and complain every time they don't see good bandwidth. Customer care costs them money, and millions of customers calling in to biatch would bleed them dry and cripple their support infrastructure. If you don't like their service, complain and keep complaining until it gets fixed. Pissed off customers can REALLY cause problems if they make a concerted effort to keep their customer service lines lit up.

When I was getting crappy quality on Comcast, I called them every time I was having slow streaming, and made sure to waste as much time of the staff and managers as I could complaining about it.

Screw that.  My time is more valuable than that.  I only got 12.5 down for DSL and I'm completely fine with that.  Streaming Netflix has never been a problem for me even if I'm streaming that on the TV and watching videos on my laptop at the same time.

And DSL has higher speeds if you really need it, but try to figure out if you really need it first.  Fark isn't going to load noticably faster.  Maybe if you do a lot of torrents or have several people in the household who all want to stream at the same time you need more speed.

Talking to customer service is just frustrating.


Yeah, but I was running into a situation where I had 30 Mbps down through Comcast and House of Cards kept dropping down to 360p and looked like crap even though I had the bandwidth. Not only that, but if I'd use Amazon or any other streaming service, everything would be in 1080p. Comcast was being a little biatch to Netflix, and I was suffering, so I felt it was kind of my duty to share the pain with their customer service reps. Normally, I wouldn't sweat something like this, but it was really pissing me off to not be able to use the bandwidth that I had paid for.
 
2014-07-30 04:12:58 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Yeah, it takes some work, but you really can't get anything fixed without it. Plus, if you get a big enough group you really don't have to spend too much time at it. 30 mins on a call times thousands of people in an organized manner could create all sorts of problems for them. It's probably surprisingly easy to take a big company like Verizon or Comcast and really hurt them with the death of a thousand cuts just because the customer base is so huge. It'd be like a Kickstarter of misery.


Hate to break it to you, but I'm guessing that would be considered a form of "cyberterrorism" these days.  Collaborating to attack our critical information infrastructure that these patriotic telecom companies created for our freedoms.
 
2014-07-30 04:39:45 PM  

Tigger: In the nineties we invented the greatest human communication tool since the printing press: the internet

Less than 20 years later we have a national debate on "should we fark up the internet or not"

Pathetic.


Commie.
 
2014-07-30 04:53:40 PM  
"Yes, I compromise myself, but he takes care of me."

Repeat over thousands of generations.
 
2014-07-30 05:20:05 PM  

mechgreg: Option 3 would be for netflix to tell the ISP's to go fark themselves, and that if any service provider starts throttling the speed for netflix, then the netflix service will no longer be available through that ISP. How many customers would either drop their internet provider or switch to a lower speed package if they couldn't get netflix? I bet a lot,


You'd be wrong. Most have very few realistic internet options. My options are cable, cellular, and wireless. All those options cost the same, at first, but cable has 50X the data cap of cellular and 10X the bandwidth of wireless. I could switch to cellular, but then I couldn't afford all the data from Netflix. I could switch to wireless, but then I wouldn't have the bandwidth for Netflix.
 
2014-07-30 05:47:51 PM  

Mad_Radhu: If you just crippled their support infrastructure with a sheer volume of calls and complaints, eventually executives would have to reconsider their throttling plan if it is negatively impacting the business in other areas. On person can't do much. Thousands of pissed off people, on the other hand, can bring a company to its knees if they basically DoS their support infrastructure with complaints.


Most of Verizon customer service is handled by companies like Teleperformance who could not give less of a damn about you.
 
2014-07-30 06:33:56 PM  

serpent_sky: They actually have the power and subscriber base (especially since we all know they'd love to go all streaming and just can't right now due to both quality and quantity issues) ... why are they doing this? They could be fighting for themselves as well as the rest of us, and negotiating with the very limited providers is just encouraging them. Damnit. I wanted to believe Netflix would lead the charge for the rest of us.


Not difficult to understand really.  I'm sure Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T would have no problem null routing Netflix.  Most of those carriers are monopolies in their respective regions.  They wouldn't give a shiat.  Telecom mob tactics, plain and simple.
 
2014-07-30 06:36:37 PM  

Mad_Radhu: "The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works."

They do have a point.  The diagram on the right, "What the Internet really looks like," is completely wrong.  But they do have a point.

/works for a CDN
 
2014-07-30 06:39:13 PM  

Shadow Blasko: Mad_Radhu: If you just crippled their support infrastructure with a sheer volume of calls and complaints, eventually executives would have to reconsider their throttling plan if it is negatively impacting the business in other areas. On person can't do much. Thousands of pissed off people, on the other hand, can bring a company to its knees if they basically DoS their support infrastructure with complaints.

Most of Verizon customer service is handled by companies like Teleperformance who could not give less of a damn about you.


No but when their metrics go to shiat because of over-saturation they will start to care quite a bit, you're there to waste their time an drive up comcast's support cost bills which surely won't cause them to just raise rates because they're an oligopoly.

Besides you don't want to tie up support, you want to grind their sales staff to a halt with constant almost-sales.  That's what hurts a company because you aren't even typically denying the existing base, you're DOS's potential new customers and revenue stream.
 
2014-07-30 06:40:18 PM  

Tobin_Lam: I could switch to wireless, but then I wouldn't have the bandwidth for Netflix.


That is largely inaccurate, if you're talking about WISPs.  I believe you are since you make the distinction between 'cellular' and 'wireless'.  Will largely depend on who your local WISP is but there are plenty that offer service up to 100Mbit or more (that will really cost you though).  But for HD Netflix you don't need more than 10Mbit, if that.
 
2014-07-30 06:40:53 PM  

r00tdenied: serpent_sky: They actually have the power and subscriber base (especially since we all know they'd love to go all streaming and just can't right now due to both quality and quantity issues) ... why are they doing this? They could be fighting for themselves as well as the rest of us, and negotiating with the very limited providers is just encouraging them. Damnit. I wanted to believe Netflix would lead the charge for the rest of us.

Not difficult to understand really.  I'm sure Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and AT&T would have no problem null routing Netflix.  Most of those carriers are monopolies in their respective regions.  They wouldn't give a shiat.  Telecom mob tactics, plain and simple.


a few days ago, the cable companies were trying to say they are afraid of Netflix and other internet giants. They will lie about anything.
 
2014-07-30 06:44:48 PM  

BumpInTheNight: Besides you don't want to tie up support, you want to grind their sales staff to a halt with constant almost-sales.

What use would a monopoly have for a sales staff?  They're the only game in town.  They'll upsell you but if you're farked either way you're only making them choose between ridiculous profits and obscene profits at great expense of your own time.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report