Netflix is trying to shift the cost of its service on to all Internet subscribers, AT&T claimed on Friday.
“As we all know, there is no free lunch, and there’s also no cost-free delivery of streaming movies. Someone has to pay that cost,” Jim Cicconi, a senior executive vice president for AT&T, wrote in a blog post.
Cicconi is firing back over Netflix’s blog post from Thursday in which the online video site called for new federal rules to ensure it can connect to Internet providers for free.
Netflix CEO Reed Hastings warned that without government intervention, Internet providers could extort payments out of websites, ultimately strangling competition and growth online.
Last month, Netflix agreed to pay for direct access to Comcast’s network. The agreement ensured smoother movie streaming for Netflix’s Comcast subscribers, but it was the first time the video site had ever had to pay for such a direct connection deal.
AT&T and Verizon have now said they are trying to broker similar agreements with Netflix, which accounts for about 30 percent of all Internet traffic. In his blog post, Hastings urged the Federal Communications Commission to enact new net-neutrality rules that bar Internet providers from “charging a toll” for interconnection deals.
“The essence of net neutrality is that [Internet service providers] such as AT&T and Comcast don’t restrict, influence or otherwise meddle with the choices consumers make,” he said.
But AT&T’s Cicconi argued that broadband companies have to invest huge sums of money to increase the capacity of their networks to meet the heavy demand of Netflix users.
Netflix is essentially asking for all Internet customers to bear the cost of upgrading networks for just its users, Cicconi argued.
“Mr. Hastings’ arrogant proposition is that everyone else should pay but Netflix,” he wrote. “That may be a nice deal if he can get it. But it’s not how the Internet, or telecommunication for that matter, has ever worked.”
What We're Following See More »
In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."
Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."
Rep. Dave Young can't even refuse his own paycheck. The Iowa Republican is trying to make a point that if Congress can't pass a budget (it's already missed the April 15 deadline) then it shouldn't be paid. But, he's been informed, the 27th Amendment prohibits him from refusing his own pay. "Young’s efforts to dock his own pay, however, are duck soup compared to his larger goal: docking the pay of every lawmaker when Congress drops the budget ball." His bill to stiff his colleagues has only mustered the support of three of them. Another bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), has about three dozen co-sponsors.
Sixty miles away, in Sandusky, Ohio. "We're pretty bitter about that," said Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. "It sucks to be California, we're like the ugly stepchild. They need us for our cash and our donors, they don't need us for anything else."