Reed Hastings is mad at Comcast, but he may have good reason. On his Facebook page yesterday, the Netflix CEO claimed that Comcast is giving its subscribers better access to its own video services than rivals like Netflix. He claims that using services like Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Go will eat into a Comcast Internet subscribers 250GB bandwidth limit; Comcast’s competing Xfinity video service, however, can be used without any penalty.
“Comcast [is] no longer following net neutrality principles,” writes Hastings. “Comcast should apply caps equally, or not at all. I spent the weekend enjoying four good Internet video apps on my Xbox: Netflix, HBO GO, Xfinity, and Hulu. When I watch video on my Xbox from three of these four apps, it counts against my Comcast Internet cap. When I watch through Comcast’s Xfinity app, however, it does not count against my Comcast Internet cap. For example, if I watch last night’s SNL episode on my Xbox through the Hulu app, it eats up about one gigabyte of my cap, but if I watch that same episode through the Xfinity Xbox app, it doesn’t use up my cap at all. The same device, the same IP address, the same Wi-Fi, the same Internet connection, but totally different cap treatment. In what way is this neutral?”
While we normally think of net neutrality as a debate about ISPs like Comcast speeding up or slowing down competing services, Hastings may be right. If this is true, Comcast may be leveraging its dominant position as an Internet Service Provder to subtly help its own services and hurt others, like Netflix.
Hastings has been vocal about his distaste for Comcast in the past and the argument ISPs like it are making that Netflix is hurting their bottom line. In February, he was asked if cable companies are “pressured” by the large amounts of data Netflix requires and he responded somewhat sarcastically.
“That 92 percent Comcast operating margin is really under a lot of pressure…There is no financial pressure on ISPs. They are making a fortune,” said Hastings (via CNET).
I do agree with him. It would be a lot better for all of us if ISPs dropped the bandwidth caps. We have to deal with extensive bandwidth limits on our smartphones already.
(Photo by Kevin Spacey, Time)
normal doesnt make it right.
For the companies like comcast that insititute these caps, why do they do it? Does it really cost them extra if users go over a certain amount of data per month or is it just about money?
All of the numbers are added up on their backend. Comcast is known for canceling service for people that go over their data cap instead of just charging a penalty, so it could be a network constraint on their end possibly.
So more of an infrastructure thing, and cost of maintenance, maybe?
That’s what they say, but a lot of credible experts argue that there is no strain on the Internet’s infrastructure right now. Netflix uses a lot, sure, but it’s built for that. The caps seem more like a way to get future revenue out of consumers. Once everyone eventually starts reaching them, then Comcast can charge for extra service.
This is what I was really wondering. I’d like to see some data as to what people on Comcast (or any ISP) are actually doing data wise and what the service provider’s *physical* network constraints are.
agreed
If the caps were used to get future revenue, why ban current customers that exceed it? Why not let them go over for now, and then just charge them for the overage down the road when the system is in place?
I’m putting my bet on it being about money. Then again, that’s the same reasoning I have for cell phone companies charging so much for data plans and even more if you go over.
But have you heard of a cell phone company banning a customer if they go over? That’s what Comcast did.
I have a hunch the person who got banned was probably not doing something above board to warrant an out and out ban of a product.
Doesn’t make sense for Comcast to ban someone, thus losing money, if it wasn’t something sketchy.
@Joel Geist You have absolutely NO idea what net NEUTRALITY is about, do you??!?
Showing preference for their own video service? uh……….sounds normal to me
It does sound normal, but it also sounds illegal.
Welcome to the dangers of monopolies. When the pipe owners control the content this is inevitable.
And we all know that the operators probably realize they can only do this for so long before they are forced to stop. So they are sure to capitalize on it for a few years while they can. Ticks me off!