Netflix: Traffic Feud Leads to Video Slowdown - Article Example

Sur Supervisor Netflix and Comcast Journalists came to be known as the fourth e when William Hazlitt used this term after the French Revolution. Since then the clergy and the Monarchs have gone and democratically elected governments are in place in most countries. Over time, importance of the fourth estate has increased several folds in providing critical information and news to the society. Usually, journalists are considered valuable critics to the government functioning. However, at times, reporters present the news or information in a way that seems to be an only authentic story on the topic unless one reads or comes across some other version of the story from a totally different angle. It is a fact that media plays a most pivotal role to influencing people in society and therefore it becomes necessary that the information conveyed to us is devoid of any personal opinion of the reporter. True media reporting is unbiased and without opinion but the moot question is whether it really happens so? Even suppressing some information and highlighting the specific one without giving any personal opinion also falls in the category of biased reporting because it tends to develop a specific opinion in the society. With the electronic media in vogue, news keeps on pouring every minute – all 24 hours in a day uninterruptedly and thereby it has enormous capacity to influence most of us. The point is technology has made huge changes in one’s life. On line video services have emerged as a major entertainer cum news provider in the recent years and thereby this technology has also set some new ground rules for many. In order to make my point through, the first article that I have chosen is titled Netflix-Traffic Feud Leads to Video Slowdown written by Drew FitzGerald and Shalini Ramachandran and published in a prestigious magazine ‘The Wall Street Journal’ in their issue dated February 18, 2014. The article highlights the dispute between Netflix and Verizon owing to new possibilities emerging due to rapid advancement in internet technologies. Netflix is a large video content provider and customers access video content through broadband connectivity provided by Verizon, Comcast, AT&T Inc. or Time Warner Cable in their regions. Usually, when tens of thousands of customers hook up to such video programs during prime time simultaneously, the program streaming slows down considerably resulting into unsatisfactory performance. Broadband providers such as Verizon communication take a view that they have fixed data carrying capacity per second in their network; however, Netflix video programs occupy a large proportion of data creating congestion to their networking pipe. The end result is the reduced streaming speed for Netflix customers especially during prime-time. The current debate is who should pay for the upgrades for satisfying experience to the customers. The article claims, “Netflix wants broadband companies to hook up to its new video-distribution network without paying them fees for carrying its traffic”. The slowdown is likely to worsen further as Netflix is planning to roll out a new series called “House of Cards”. Verizon’s argument is that they cannot discriminate with other traffic on the internet. Many customers complain that Netflix programs are unwatchable. Even upgrading internet towards high-speed service package is not enough for uninterrupted viewing of prime-time Netflix programs. Moreover, Verizon has already a policy in place asking payments from those video content providers who infuse huge data into their pipes; according to them, when all benefit goes to Netflix they need to pay for upgrades too. The writers state that recently the court gave its verdict in favor of Verizon blocking "the Federal Communications Commissions "net neutrality" rules". However, the article fails to elaborate on the "net neutrality" rule that prevails currently – putting readers in the state of quandary. The article does state that some bigger web companies such as Facebook, Microsoft, Google have been paying to broadband providers for direct connections to facilitate speedier and smoother experience to their customers. The moot question is why Netflix cannot do that when the company is getting benefitted immensely? Though the article raises some key questions on emerging scenario due to changing technological landscape, it fails to elaborate on network neutrality principles that how far they are valid now ­– in the current business scenario. The article concludes at the end that regardless of who wins between Netflix and broadband providers, the ultimate upgrading cost is to be borne by customers. Is there any need to arrive at such conclusion? Because in a free market economy where huge numbers of broadband providers are already in service, it is the quality – in terms of speed and cost that will settle the market price that any customer agrees to pay. The article also does not speak that net neutrality prevents the emergence of platform competition that serves the last customer in the row. Net neutrality was a natural acceptance during the time when communication channels were not flooded with enormous amount of data in the form of motion pictures and streaming videos freely by programmers; however, technological advancement in telecommunication field has now made this principle redundant to a great extent because those who get business benefits must also borne its cost. The article fails to elaborate on the fact that the Obama administration and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are committed towards providing a free and open internet. Does not it mean that the FCC will rewrite its net-neutrality rules in a new way so that courts cannot obstruct it? Further, how can one ignore the fact that Netflix is a popular content provider among large section of the population and it is quite likely that when Netflix hooks up to a specific ISP, other ISPs may lose their subscriptions in huge numbers? In that case, how ISPs, in spite of court ruling in their favor, will be able to dictate terms to Netflix? The single image attached with the article speaks about only Netflix primetime performance in reference to several ISPs but what about other large video content providers such as Amazon or Hulu? How their video content affects the congestion and performance during prime time, especially when ISPs are common. The second article that I have chosen is titled Netflix to Pay Comcast for Smoother Streaming written by Shalini Ramchandran and published on February 23, 2014 in The Wall Street Journal. As title itself suggests Netflix has agreed to pay Comcast Corp to provide superior experience to Comcast customers. The writer has described the deal a landmark decision that finally will resolve dispute with other broadband providers. It is pertinent to note that in lieu of payment, Netflix will now have a direct access to Comcasts network. The deal has materialized in wake of Comcast takeover decision of Time Warner Cable making it the largest ISP in the US with 32 million household consumers in Comcasts fold. This will now provide the US consumers a much superior experience of watching Netflix video content seamlessly. That means dispute between Netflix and Verizon that was going on for quite some time no longer exists. Why such a U-turn by Netflix suddenly? Is it because Netflix has lost hopes after recent court ruling in favor of Verizon or Netflix realized after court ruling that the company now cannot ask ISPS to serve them on the basis of net neutrality? Viewing quality improves when Netflix servers get connected to providers networks directly and that is what seems to be accomplished by Netflix through its deal with Comcast. This is in line with what major broadband providers wanted Netflix to pay for their huge video content flowing through their network. The writer correctly argues that in line with the Comcast deal Netflix may also compensate other providers too eliminating middlemen in this deal. Since mid-2012, Netflix was trying to hook up directly with larger internet service providers without paying anything to them but this deal suggests a major policy shift by Netflix. Between October and January, the average speed of streaming Netflix video content, during prime time, dropped significantly and most of the ISPs wanted Netflix to bear the upgrading cost. With the release of the second season of its famous political drama "House of Cards" on February 14, Cogent Communications, an intermediate, witnessed constant outbound flow for 12 hours at a stretch increasing loading time and thus, giving unpleasant experience to customers. In a bid to prevent customer backlash, Netflix was compelled to strike a deal with Comcast with an aim to hook up on their servers directly. According to the writer, it is evident from the deal "Broadband providers are gaining leverage with content companies". Moreover, the writer opines "The deal could remove one potential issue that might have clouded the regulatory review of Comcasts Time Warner Cable acquisition". On the one hand magazine states "Netflix has little room to pay more to transmit its TV shows and movies" but on the other hand, it fails to specify the financial implications that Netflix may face on account of this deal. It appears from this article that the deal between Netflix and Comcast ends standoff and might work as a precedent while dealing with other broadband suppliers. The article does not specify clearly whether exclusive pipe will be laid between Netflix servers and Comcast to carry the data further or not. If that is so than what would happen to the open internet philosophy that Obama administration and the FCC are committed to so far. These are big questions and critical enough for small time content players how they would be dealt with at the hands of ISPs in the future. Ironically, the article does not provide any clue how the deal between Netflix and Comcast and for that matter, with other broadband providers in the future, is likely to affect household budgets. If the upgrading cost is passed on to the consumers then it simply means that in such matters where two parties are involved for providing satisfactory experience to consumers, the power to negotiate the cost does not rest in the hands of consumers at all. And then the question is how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can correct this anomaly in the larger interests of consumers? The third article under the heading How the Internet Was Meant to Be published on Feb 25 in the Wall Street Journal takes up some of the basic issues related to the net neutrality. The article has been written by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. The article is an attempt to discuss likely future directions in the wake of Netflix and Comcast deal that took place only a couple of days back. Holman states quoting Reed Hastings of Netflix, "Consumer expectations of the Internet are set. Carriers must supply unimpeded access to every kind of web content or else". He further writes consumers "have been thrown into fresh confusion by Mr. Hastingss deal this week with the ultimate devil symbol, cable giant Comcast". According to the writer, the old traditional idea to have a single vast pipe to allow everyone to pass through equally and evenly is now in jeopardy. The writer accuses public policy makers for creating inadequate competition leading to a state where viewers suffer. With this deal between the two companies – the content provider and ISP, the internet is now getting more flexible and ready to find its solutions on its own. YouTube and Netflix kind video content providers will grow in the coming years because of the increased demand from the customers and then the traditional way of two-way internet services popularly known as an open pipe or ‘net neutral’ cannot meet aspirations of the customers. The writer is quite categorical in stating, "All businesses collect their costs from their customers or they arent long in business". In fact, the writer poses a totally different question, "who bears the incentive to handle traffic efficiently". The question becomes even more relevant when Netflix decides to provide "SuperHD" content to its customers. In such circumstances, how Comcast, without any incentive, should handle the huge data loading on its network? It is obvious that someone will have to upgrade the internet wherever due to bottlenecks traffic tends to slow down. When the largest beneficiary is Netflix, it is quite natural for Netflix to take initiative and pay Comcast for upgrading of the network. Many questions will be raised after this deal. For example, small startups will be at disadvantage over Netflix, but the writer disagrees with that because startups will not be big enough to have problems on delivery over the public internet. Issues crop up when content provider becomes big enough to choke the pipe as happened with Netflix in the last one year or so. The writer continues to doubt that the establishment and the FCC will continue to press for the net neutrality without understanding the real issue behind this faceoff. It is quite natural that the largest beneficiary pays for the expansion and it cannot go otherwise. In the last paragraph, the writer has accused the policy makers as the "most bloody-minded interest group". Perhaps, it is because of the opposition to Time Warner Comcast merger from certain political groups with some ulterior motives. The FCC remains to be in favor of net neutrality and that is why the companies such as Verizon have to challenge it in courts of law. The writer cautions the commission not to derail "economically useful transactions" just to assuage the demands from the community favoring net neutrality. The writer views that such deal is not going to affect usual internet traffic at all. The big issue with this article is that it has used more rhetoric than actual substance. At times, readers find the writing not leading to anywhere? How internet will evolve in future is not very much clear from this article? On the contrary, it appears to suggest that internet should have developed through the collaborative approach between beneficiaries and ISPs but it forgets that ISPs are also beneficiaries in this whole episode. Their subscription numbers keep on increasing along with the growth of the content providers. In fact, this is a natural evolutionary phase in the backdrop of technological advancement in communication field across the world. And all beneficiaries will settle their dispute overtime according to what suits them. Finally, news reporting often fails to provide critical information without which readers find themselves in a confused state. At times, pages are filled with rhetoric to confuse readers even more. Full information is not provided either due to lack of space or with purpose is up to readers to judge. We must cross check information through variety of sources before coming to any conclusion. We should always read the information on any issue without any preconceived notion and apply our own thoughts rationally rather than getting tilted with what writer wants to convey. Works-Cited FitzGerald, Drew & Ramchandran, Shalini. Netflix-Traffic Feud Leads to Video Slowdown. Web. 12 March 2014 Ramchandran, Shalini. Netflix to Pay Comcast for Smoother Streaming. Web. 11 March 2014 Jenkins Jr., Holman W. “How the Internet Was Meant to Be”. Web. 12 March 2014 Read More