This Post Is Not About Steve Jobs
What What (In The Butt)? What What (Fair Use Doesn't Need A Trial)?

Ante Upped Some More: $2,500 For John Sununu And Harold Ford Jr. To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bills

Broadband

from the crickets dept

Thu, Aug 25th 2011 12:24pm -

On Tuesday, we questioned John Sununu and Harold Ford Jr.’s assertion that Netflix was somehow getting a “free ride” on the internet these days, by asking if they’d be willing to swap broadband bills with the company for the rest of the year. On Wednesday we upped the ante, by offering to give each man $500 if they’d pay Netflix’s broadband bill for the final quarter of the year. $500 would come from Derek Kerton who suggested it, and another $500 would come from us at Techdirt. Since then, a few more people have contacted me and offered (anonymously) to put up another $1,500 between them. So we’re now up to $2,500 total (or $1,250 each) if John Sununu and Harold Ford Jr. agree to pay Netflix’s broadband bills for the months of October, November and December. Or, you know, they could admit that their op-ed was misleading claptrap. Of course, their failure to accept this “free” money sorta makes that statement for them.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

40 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Ante Upped Some More: $2,500 For John Sununu And Harold Ford Jr. To Pay Netflix's Broadband Bills”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
40 Comments
blaktron (profile) says:

Re: Re:

If you understood how networking is parcelled out, you would stop repeating that ‘transit in the middle’ fud. Bandwidth is paid for at EVERY hop. All of them. None of it is free, regardless if it should be or not. Netflix pays an ISP, who buys all their bandwidth from backbone providers (the ‘middle’) who have routing agreements with each other that basically even out who sends who more traffic, and the one who sends the most pays the other a small amount (BGP). There is no free bandwidth, so stop acting like there is.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Oh yoy! This crap again?

I understand very much how networking works. But John Sununu And Harold Ford Jr. are not network engineers, are they? They have had it explained to them the best they can, likely having the transit companies coming along saying that they will not add any more transit bandwidth because “nobody is paying for it”, and they are putting 2 and 2 together.

Once you understand that the vast majority of people have no clue how the internet works (or like some of us, weren’t around as it was getting built), you would understand what they are saying.

In a very narrow way, they are correct. Netflix is not directly paying for the transit they use.

PrometheeFeu (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually, when I pay my bill, I am paying for access to the global internet. What that means is access to Netflix. I’m pretty sure Netflix pays for the same service on a much larger scale. So it is absurd to divide the different hops. I am paying for Comcast to get me a link to Netflix. If Comcast does not provide me with a link to Netflix (or Amazon, YouTube, Google etc…) I will cancel my subscription.

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

In a very narrow way, they are correct. Netflix is not directly paying for the transit they use.

So, in a very narrow way, I’m not paying for farmers to grow my food. Since I’m only directly paying for my fresh veggies at the supermarket, I’m freeloading on the backs of farmers!

(/sarc off)

That statement is wrong in every way possible, and not correct even in a very narrow way.

out_of_the_blue says:

We all pay /collectively/ for infrastructure, shock for "capitalists",

so technically ANY /ONE/ is getting a “free ride”. No one in particular pays, all benefit. That’s the “commonwealth”, includes highways and such. I happen to think it’s a good system, as otherwise, no infrastructure would exist. (And my only purpose with this is to point out the collective nature of society, gigging those who believe in “capitalism” as the source of all that’s good.)

Otherwise, this is the lamest post of yours that I can recall, Mike; previous on this “topic” next lamest. You know perfectly well that those dolts aren’t doltish enough to take you seriously when you set conditions to your liking.

But you haven’t proved anything by it except that you /think/ that you really zinged them.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: We all pay /collectively/ for infrastructure, shock for "capitalists",

7/10 for actually making me believe (with the first lines of your post) that you weren’t trolling. I”ll point a few mistakes:
– you used Mike, not Masnick;
– you forgot to mention the freetards;
– you said something useful in your first paragraph – bo-hoo good trolls are TOTALLY clueless.

Learn 2 troll.

Ahem. I do agree with your first post. Entirely. And it happens to be in line with my thoughts of copyright.

Also, Mike is just having fun bashing the cluelessness (how do I write that?) of those gentlemen in a very good example of humor (and maybe sarcasm). Mike doesn’t mean to be taken seriously with this ‘challenge’.

btrussell (profile) says:

Re: Not to spoil the joke

I believe I saw $0.01/hour.

“Netflix: ISPs who charge by the gigabyte are ridiculous”
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/01/netflix-charging-by-the-gigabyte-is-ridiculous.ars

From article:
“Wired ISPs have large fixed costs of building and maintaining their last mile network of residential cable and fiber. The ISPs? costs, however, to deliver a marginal gigabyte, which is about an hour of viewing, from one of our regional interchange points over their last mile wired network to the consumer is less than a penny, and falling, so there is no reason that pay-per-gigabyte is economically necessary. Moreover, at $1 per gigabyte over wired networks, it would be grossly overpriced.”

How many hours of streams do they do/day?

Anonymous Coward says:

Yes they were misleading

[my attempt to cut through sununu’s lobbyist manure and try to figure out what he’s really saying]

Recently, Netflix in the WSJ editorialized against caps and usage based fees on broadband consumers. I think Sununu et al are responding to that issue.

Sununu and his cronies are (badly) trying to say that the current popular ISP business model of overselling bandwidth to consumers is extremely beneficial to Netflix. If consumers really paid for guaranteed 24/7 unlimited data at advertised rates,they’d be paying the same huge fees that businesses have to pay. It’s only thanks to the fact that at any one time a great number of their customers are using very little bandwidth that they are able to advertise to you and me bandwidth at the prices that they do.

Sununu is being misleading by saying that it’s netflix that’s not paying for the their data rates. He’s really getting at the fact that you and I are getting (sorta?) cheaper than real rates subsidized by those who aren’t using a lot of bandwidth. And if that subsidy went away (e.g. if consumers buy into [theoretically] cheaper usage-based services), netflix would find itself with fewer customers.

AR (profile) says:

Re: Yes they were misleading

I have to agree with a lot of what you are saying about how the ISP’s charge businesses and the consumers for their internet connection. Its kind of similar to how the insurance companies charge you for insurance. The ones who dont use it (make claims), help to subsidize the company for the ones who do (along with the ones making claims paying more).

My question is who are these politicians turned lobbyist lobbying for and why?

Is it the ISP’s, (cable companies) who are wanting more Government subsidies for maintaining their cables (Infrastructure), along with help against Netfjix, who is competing with their own streaming on demand services, by increasing “passed on” operating costs for Netflix and thus decreasing their market share?

Or the movie industry, looking for Fee funded subsidies,as a way to put Netflix out of business (or at least pay a lot more), because Netflix is cutting into profits that they feel they are entitled to, but dont know how to implement a profitable service for?

Maybe its both. A perfect storm.

Although I like the way Mike is approaching the misleading statements of these politicians/lobbyists, I would really like full disclosure of who they are representing and why.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Yes they were misleading

I assume their helping the telco/cable companies. These ISPs are looking at a pretty saturated market. To increase revenues, they are looking to establish caps and usage based billing. That way, Granny can get what looks like a small discount on her Internet plan (but could turn into a large increase when granny accidentally crosses the cap line 2-3 times a year), and the heavy use internet users (e.g. netflix users) can see a larger cost to get what they had already.

Netflix’s Hyman saw the market already moving that way in the wireless data market and pointed out that the anti-competitive nature of our internet ISP situation may leave consumers stuck with the situation:

“Given that bandwidth is cheap and plentiful and will only grow more so with time, there is no good reason for bandwidth caps and fees to take root.

Consumers and regulators need to take heed of what is happening and avoid winding up like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water. It’s time to jump before it’s too late.”

AR (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Yes they were misleading

That kind of makes sense and leads me to believe its all the more reason to leave Netflix alone. Let the consumer backlash dictate to the ISP’s what they can and cannot do with usage caps. Also, go after the ISP’s for eating up their profits with hugely bloated corporate salaries but not investing more in their own infrastructures.

Maybe its time to abolish more (or all) of the cable/telco monopolies, force free use of the cables (infrastructure), and let others, like Netflix, become internet/content providers themselves. After all, the infrastructure was paid for by the customers, government subsidies, and the allwoing of their monopolies a long time ago

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Apparently, you do not understand how td works. Mike gets paid from all of the advertising on td. When a headline gets you to view a page then Mike gets paid. If a particular theme gets lots of page views then Mike will post a follow up to get even more page views – comments only go so far in bringing you back again and again, fresh posts keep pages views up. Mike needs to get paid again and again to keep td going. You have to ask yourself if the subjects of these posts have even seen these posts? Do they know who Mike is or care? And last but not least, does this grandstanding on td have any effect whatsoever on the lobbying efforts that are the target of the posts?

I think you are blinded by the koolaid. These posts drive traffic on td and that’s it. I can’t believe I’m wasting my time telling you this.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

This Post Is Not About Steve Jobs
What What (In The Butt)? What What (Fair Use Doesn't Need A Trial)?