

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Announced on Sunday, the deal will give Netflix direct access to Comcast delivery networks by side-stepping third-party delivery systems that others are forced to use. In effect, the arrangement will speed up Netflix streaming, but only because Netflix can afford to pay the fee that Comcast has now set.
That situation, in which one company can make an exclusive deal with an ISP in order to receive special treatment is a fundamental betrayal of the concept known as 'net neutrality,' in which all online content is given equal treatment across the internet.
As Eric Blattberg describes at VentureBeat:
Whatever Netflix is paying Comcast, the multiyear deal could force Netflix to cough up money to other major broadband providers for similar performance guarantees. Streaming quality has suffered in recent months, especially for Comcast and Verizon customers.
Netflix was pushing Comcast to connect to its servers without compensation, but the broadband provider refused to take on the heavy traffic load free of charge. After seeing average speeds to Comcast customers drop as much as 27 percent during peak hours since October, Netflix buckled and agreed to pay.
John Bergmayer, a senior staff attorney at the advocacy group Public Knowledge, said the secrecy of the Comcast-Netflix deal is one of its essential problems.
"No one on the outside knows what is happening in this market," Bergmayer said. What is clear, however, is "that residential ISPs should be in the business of charging their users for access the Internet, not of charging the rest of the Internet for access to their users. This ensures that they are putting the needs of their users first."
The new development is especially troubling in the context of Comcast's recent announcement to purchase Time Warner cable, a merger that, if approved, would make Comcast the single dominant cable company in the nation with a full one-third of market share.
"One way to prevent competitive problems from arising, and to reduce the need for future regulation, is to prevent ISPs from holding other networks hostage," Bergmayer said. "This raises concerns in light of the proposed Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger."
And Matt Wood, policy director at Free Press, said when it comes to net neutrality and preserving the principles of a fair and open internet, size does matter.
As Wood told the Washington Post: "Only a giant like Netflix could afford to withstand a protracted battle like this, and it may have just surrendered more than it would have if ISPs weren't allowed to abuse their gatekeeper status."
________________________________________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |

Announced on Sunday, the deal will give Netflix direct access to Comcast delivery networks by side-stepping third-party delivery systems that others are forced to use. In effect, the arrangement will speed up Netflix streaming, but only because Netflix can afford to pay the fee that Comcast has now set.
That situation, in which one company can make an exclusive deal with an ISP in order to receive special treatment is a fundamental betrayal of the concept known as 'net neutrality,' in which all online content is given equal treatment across the internet.
As Eric Blattberg describes at VentureBeat:
Whatever Netflix is paying Comcast, the multiyear deal could force Netflix to cough up money to other major broadband providers for similar performance guarantees. Streaming quality has suffered in recent months, especially for Comcast and Verizon customers.
Netflix was pushing Comcast to connect to its servers without compensation, but the broadband provider refused to take on the heavy traffic load free of charge. After seeing average speeds to Comcast customers drop as much as 27 percent during peak hours since October, Netflix buckled and agreed to pay.
John Bergmayer, a senior staff attorney at the advocacy group Public Knowledge, said the secrecy of the Comcast-Netflix deal is one of its essential problems.
"No one on the outside knows what is happening in this market," Bergmayer said. What is clear, however, is "that residential ISPs should be in the business of charging their users for access the Internet, not of charging the rest of the Internet for access to their users. This ensures that they are putting the needs of their users first."
The new development is especially troubling in the context of Comcast's recent announcement to purchase Time Warner cable, a merger that, if approved, would make Comcast the single dominant cable company in the nation with a full one-third of market share.
"One way to prevent competitive problems from arising, and to reduce the need for future regulation, is to prevent ISPs from holding other networks hostage," Bergmayer said. "This raises concerns in light of the proposed Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger."
And Matt Wood, policy director at Free Press, said when it comes to net neutrality and preserving the principles of a fair and open internet, size does matter.
As Wood told the Washington Post: "Only a giant like Netflix could afford to withstand a protracted battle like this, and it may have just surrendered more than it would have if ISPs weren't allowed to abuse their gatekeeper status."
________________________________________________

Announced on Sunday, the deal will give Netflix direct access to Comcast delivery networks by side-stepping third-party delivery systems that others are forced to use. In effect, the arrangement will speed up Netflix streaming, but only because Netflix can afford to pay the fee that Comcast has now set.
That situation, in which one company can make an exclusive deal with an ISP in order to receive special treatment is a fundamental betrayal of the concept known as 'net neutrality,' in which all online content is given equal treatment across the internet.
As Eric Blattberg describes at VentureBeat:
Whatever Netflix is paying Comcast, the multiyear deal could force Netflix to cough up money to other major broadband providers for similar performance guarantees. Streaming quality has suffered in recent months, especially for Comcast and Verizon customers.
Netflix was pushing Comcast to connect to its servers without compensation, but the broadband provider refused to take on the heavy traffic load free of charge. After seeing average speeds to Comcast customers drop as much as 27 percent during peak hours since October, Netflix buckled and agreed to pay.
John Bergmayer, a senior staff attorney at the advocacy group Public Knowledge, said the secrecy of the Comcast-Netflix deal is one of its essential problems.
"No one on the outside knows what is happening in this market," Bergmayer said. What is clear, however, is "that residential ISPs should be in the business of charging their users for access the Internet, not of charging the rest of the Internet for access to their users. This ensures that they are putting the needs of their users first."
The new development is especially troubling in the context of Comcast's recent announcement to purchase Time Warner cable, a merger that, if approved, would make Comcast the single dominant cable company in the nation with a full one-third of market share.
"One way to prevent competitive problems from arising, and to reduce the need for future regulation, is to prevent ISPs from holding other networks hostage," Bergmayer said. "This raises concerns in light of the proposed Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger."
And Matt Wood, policy director at Free Press, said when it comes to net neutrality and preserving the principles of a fair and open internet, size does matter.
As Wood told the Washington Post: "Only a giant like Netflix could afford to withstand a protracted battle like this, and it may have just surrendered more than it would have if ISPs weren't allowed to abuse their gatekeeper status."
________________________________________________