Netflix Fears the Internet Could Become Like Cable TV

Fights between big companies could leave Internet users in the dark, the video site’s lobbyist warns.

A sign is posted in front of the Netflix headquarters on January 22, 2014 in Los Gatos, California. 
National Journal
Brendan Sasso
June 11, 2014, 1:22 p.m.

When ne­go­ti­ations between big me­dia com­pan­ies and cable TV pro­viders break down, view­ers are of­ten left without ac­cess to their fa­vor­ite chan­nels and TV shows.

A fight between CBS and Time Warner Cable last year blacked out chan­nels for mil­lions of con­sumers. Sub­scribers to small cable pro­viders lost ac­cess to Vi­ac­om chan­nels earli­er this year.

Those black­outs could be a pre­view of the In­ter­net’s fu­ture, Net­flix’s top lob­by­ist warned dur­ing a pan­el dis­cus­sion Wed­nes­day.

Chris­toph­er Liber­telli said fed­er­al reg­u­lat­ors should in­ter­vene or the In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders could “turn the In­ter­net in­to more of a cable tele­vi­sion sys­tem.”

Just like in the cable TV in­dustry, dis­putes between video web­sites and In­ter­net ser­vice pro­viders could keep cus­tom­ers from watch­ing the shows they want, he warned.

For years, web­sites have hired third parties to de­liv­er data to In­ter­net pro­viders, who carry the con­tent to con­sumers’ homes. In re­cent years, be­cause of the massive amount of data that Net­flix is de­liv­er­ing to its sub­scribers, the com­pany has been by­passing those third parties and con­nect­ing dir­ectly to the pro­viders’ net­works. Those dir­ect con­nec­tions en­sure that Net­flix videos stream as smoothly as pos­sible.

But Com­cast and oth­er pro­viders are de­mand­ing that Net­flix pay for dir­ect ac­cess to their net­works. If Net­flix doesn’t pay up, videos be­come grainy and take longer to load.

“This in­ter­con­nec­tion point has be­come the new choke point, the place for ISPs to tax con­tent com­pan­ies,” Liber­telli ar­gued dur­ing the pan­el dis­cus­sion hos­ted by the As­pen In­sti­tute.

He said Net­flix chose to pay Com­cast earli­er this year for a dir­ect-con­nec­tion deal be­cause the situ­ation had be­come “in­tol­er­able.”

“We paid our way around con­ges­tion,” he ex­plained.

The Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion’s net-neut­ral­ity rules only cov­er how In­ter­net pro­viders handle traffic once it’s on their net­work. The reg­u­la­tions don’t af­fect how net­works con­nect to each oth­er.

But Liber­telli warned that the FCC shouldn’t just give In­ter­net pro­viders a new place to dis­crim­in­ate. He urged the agency to en­act new reg­u­la­tions or im­pose con­di­tions on the massive mer­gers pending be­fore the agency to en­sure Web com­pan­ies can con­nect to broad­band net­works for free.

Jim Cic­coni, AT&T’s top lob­by­ist, ar­gued that Net­flix has al­ways had to pay to trans­mit its traffic and that there’s noth­ing spe­cial about the dir­ect-con­nec­tion deals.

“Net­flix wants free. I get it,” he said dur­ing the pan­el dis­cus­sion. “Some­body ends up hav­ing to pay for the trans­mis­sion of that traffic.”

Reg­u­la­tions re­quir­ing free con­nec­tions would end up for­cing all In­ter­net users to pay for Net­flix’s traffic, re­gard­less of wheth­er they ac­tu­ally sub­scribe to the ser­vice or not, he said.

In an emailed state­ment fol­low­ing the dis­cus­sion, Sena Fitzmaurice, a Com­cast spokes­wo­man, ar­gued that only Net­flix can de­cide how to de­liv­er its traffic.

“They choose the path the traffic takes to us. They can choose to avoid con­ges­tion or in­flict it,” she said. 

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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.
11 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:
×