Netflix Wants You to Know Who Should Be Blamed for Slow Videos

Netflix has started encouraging its customers to blame their internet service providers for substandard performance.

National Journal
Zachary M. Seward, Quartz
See more stories about...
Zachary M. Seward, Quartz
June 4, 2014, 7:04 p.m.

When on­line video stut­ters, buf­fers, or won’t play al­to­geth­er, people get ir­rit­ated — and Net­flix has star­ted en­cour­aging its cus­tom­ers to blame their in­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders for the sub­stand­ard per­form­ance.

The screen­shot above was cap­tured by Yuri Vic­tor, a de­sign­er at Vox Me­dia, as he tried to watch Net­flix video on an Apple com­puter. His in­ter­net pro­vider is Ve­r­i­zon FiOS, a fiber-op­tic net­work that prom­ises ex­cep­tion­ally high speeds. Oth­ers have re­cently seen a sim­il­ar mes­sage while us­ing AT&T’s net­work.

Re­spons­ib­il­ity for the qual­ity of stream­ing video is at the crux of cur­rent de­bates over in­ter­net reg­u­la­tion. Net­flix, which ac­counts for more than a third of all traffic head­ing in­to Amer­ic­an homes at peak hours, would like to put more of the onus on in­ter­net pro­viders. “The Ve­r­i­zon net­work is crowded right now” is a pub­lic re­la­tions cam­paign in the form of an er­ror mes­sage.

Net­flix down­load speeds in the US had de­teri­or­ated at the end of last year as its con­nec­tions with some in­ter­net pro­viders be­came clogged. The pro­viders said that was Net­flix’s fault for send­ing an ever-in­creas­ing amount of data across their net­works. Net­flix dis­agreed, but in Feb­ru­ary, it struck a deal to pay Com­cast, the lead­ing US in­ter­net pro­vider, for a more dir­ect line to cus­tom­ers. Speeds im­me­di­ately im­proved, as HBO’s John Oliv­er noted in his re­cent vir­al rant over net neut­ral­ity. Net­flix struck a sim­il­ar deal with Ve­r­i­zon in April.

But Net­flix and oth­er stream­ing video ser­vices, like Google’s You­Tube, say in­ter­net pro­viders shouldn’t be able to cut those kinds of deals. US reg­u­lat­ors are cur­rently weigh­ing the is­sue.

In ad­di­tion to lob­by­ing the gov­ern­ment, in­ter­net video com­pan­ies have made a point of pub­li­ciz­ing how their ser­vices per­form on vari­ous net­works. Net­flix pub­lishes such data for in­ter­net pro­viders in 20 coun­tries. Google re­cently star­ted do­ing the same in the US and Canada, la­beling some in­ter­net pro­viders as “You­Tube HD Veri­fied” and oth­ers, not-so-much. Net­flix has vowed to “en­cour­age our mem­bers to de­mand the open In­ter­net they are pay­ing their ISP to de­liv­er.”

Amer­ic­ans gen­er­ally dis­like their in­ter­net pro­viders and are more sym­path­et­ic to com­pan­ies like Net­flix. Still, when stream­ing video doesn’t work like it should, people may be equally frus­trated at all parties in­volved. Tom Wheel­er, chair­man of the US Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion (and former cable in­dustry lob­by­ist), re­cently re­called watch­ing Net­flix in bed with his wife, when the feed began to buf­fer. “You’re chair­man of the FCC,” she said to him. “Why is this hap­pen­ing?

Next time it hap­pens, Net­flix has an an­swer for her.

Up­date (2:40pm EDT): In a blog post, Ve­r­i­zon says Net­flix’s ac­cus­at­ory er­ror mes­sage “is not only in­ac­cur­ate, it is de­lib­er­ately mis­lead­ing.” Ve­r­i­zon’s site isn’t cur­rently work­ing, though, so here’s the full text:

Re­ports from this morn­ing have sug­ges­ted that Net­flix is en­ga­ging in a PR stunt in an at­tempt to shift blame to ISPs for the buf­fer­ing that some of its cus­tom­ers may be ex­per­i­en­cing. Ac­cord­ing to one journ­al­ist’s tweet from last night, Net­flix is dis­play­ing a mes­sage on the screen for users who ex­per­i­ence buf­fer­ing which says: “The Ve­r­i­zon net­work is crowded right now.”

This claim is not only in­ac­cur­ate, it is de­lib­er­ately mis­lead­ing.

The source of the prob­lem is al­most cer­tainly NOT con­ges­tion in Ve­r­i­zon’s net­work. In­stead, the prob­lem is most likely con­ges­tion on the con­nec­tion that Net­flix has chosen to use to reach Ve­r­i­zon’s net­work. Of course, Net­flix is solely re­spons­ible for choos­ing how their traffic is routed in­to any ISP’s net­work.

Some re­port­ers seem to have bought in­to Net­flix’s claims without ques­tion, and some have con­flated this dis­pute with net neut­ral­ity.  For those look­ing for more care­ful ana­lys­is, however, there is plenty of good ma­ter­i­al out there by tech­nic­al ex­perts (such as in­dustry ana­lyst Dan Ray­burn) that set the re­cord straight. One of the best stor­ies is an in­form­at­ive piece by Mag­gie Rear­don on CNET, which ex­plains what is really go­ing on. (And of course, there is my own blog post from last sum­mer when this story first star­ted ap­pear­ing.)

It is sad that Net­flix is will­ing to de­lib­er­ately mis­lead its cus­tom­ers so they can be used as pawns in busi­ness ne­go­ti­ations and reg­u­lat­ory pro­ceed­ings.

It would be more ac­cur­ate for Net­flix’s mes­sage screen to say: “The path that we have chosen to reach Ve­r­i­zon’s net­work is crowded right now.”

However, that would high­light their re­spons­ib­il­ity for the prob­lem.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×