Yes, there was the case of Netflix and Comcast for example.
The events were basically these:
Comcast noticed that Netflix is responsible for a lot of traffic of their private internet customers.
Comcast asked Netflix to pay for a better quality of service to their customers. They refused.
Comc...
"Comcast started throttling Netflix." As I recall, it wasn't that they started throttling Netflix, it was that they stopped upgrading the connection with Netflix. Netflix has been growing pretty constantly, so just stopping replacement of obsolete equipment with bigger, more capable equipment had the effect of throttling Netflix without every having to actually reduce the overall traffic. They simply maintained one level which had the effect of making it worse for every customer who used Netflix or another service from the same ISP as Netflix used.
@Brythan That explanation doesn't make sense. Comcast doesn't control the Internet infrastructure between itself and Netflix's servers; they buy bandwidth from Tier 1 providers like every other residential ISP. The only point where Comcast could affect the connection to Netflix is in transit between itself and its customers, and there's no "equipment" specific to Netflix in there.
The other critical portion of this argument is that Comcast saw Netflix as a competitor to their cable business, siphoning off customers who wanted to "cut the cord". By throttling Netflix, they were using the ISP side of their business (which has de facto monopolies in many areas) to artificially hinder competitors to the video content side of their business (cable and on-demand). In non-telecom industries, this could be considered an illegal anti-competitive business practice.
@ArrowCase And yet that's what experts like Michael Weinberg of Public Knowledge were saying at the time. The confusion may be that Comcast and Verizon are big enough that entry doesn't have to go through the Tier 1 providers. Both have entry points in Santa Cruz. I.e. you're describing how two ISPs in different regions would work, but Comcast and Verizon are in the same region as Netflix (as well as many others).
Similar link for Verizon says, "It's saying that Netflix traffic has overwhelmed the points of connection between the ISP and the middlemen who deliver this data for the streaming video giant. The key difference is that Verizon says Netflix could solve this problem easily by spreading its traffic over multiple transit providers. Level 3 is arguing that the best solution would be to simply upgrade Verizon's network, a process it claims to have offered to pay for." Level 3 is Netflix's ISP.
At least you don't have to negotiate with the Deutsche Telekom. You can register for free. But of course you still have to satisfy their technical requirements and have some implementation costs on your side. Therefore I still think this is a barrier for small companies, even if official it's for free.
@Brythan Although I don't doubt some of Comcast's switches could be overwhelmed by Netflix traffic, what customers were experiencing can't be explained by just that claim. Netflix speeds degraded during the Comcast dispute, but a huge chunk of non-Netflix traffic ought to have been affected because Level 3 handles far more of Comcast's requests than just Netflix. To get an idea of how much, just the other week a Level 3 network issue caused slow/dead Internet for Comcast customers across the US.
Is there any evidence that Comcast (or Verizon) actually considered Netflix a competitor, and were trying to stop their users from using it, as opposed to, say, wanting Netflix to pay part of the cost of the bandwidth they were using?
@jcast - Pretty sure that ubiquitous...Netflix is considered direct competition with TV providers as people are actively dropping regular cable subscriptions in favor of Netflix. Or are you looking for someone to type that as a search string into google and find huffingtonpost.ca/entry/netflix-cable-tv_n_6846942 for you?
@Twelfth - tell you what, you Google for me and I'll logic for you. Nothing in the documents you leaked to used the word 'competitor' or even hinted that Comcast is trying to do anything except make money off the bandwidth they sell (horror of horrors!). Again, if you have any evidence that they're going after Netflix to force people to use Cable TV, give it, otherwise it's your assumption that of course that's what they're trying to do.
Two corporate behemoths like Netflix and Comcast doing battle on the field of regulatory landscape is not exactly what I meant by the "problem that NN purports to solve". That is hardly a matter of "censorship". And again, the subjunctive is used three time in the first paragraph. If a single content provider accounts for a third of all internet traffic during the evening, some solution is needed. Doesn't this suggest that maybe the marketplace can deal with a problem like this more adroitly? usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/23/…
@jcast All businesses want to make money off the stuff they sell. Duh. That's a tautology. It has no bearing on anything. But some ways of making money are so unfair they shouldn't be allowed. Say I sell a graffiti-cleaning service. I definitely should not be allowed to encourage vandals to draw graffiti on peoples' fences so that I can make more money cleaning it up - even though that's just "trying to make more money off the service I sell".
@jcast - They set a price increase on data equivalent to 5 hours of netflix per day, but exempted Xbox since it's not their intended target...er...I mean...they like Xbox?...oh no wait, Xbox offers Comcasts infinity that competes with netflix! adage.com/article/media/… "For pay-TV companies, usage-based pricing is "an insurance policy against cord-cutting," Mr. Moffett wrote in an October report." That report from Moffett is a bit harder to find.
You have to admit there is some irony to Netflix using a Comcast internet delivery services to compete with Comcast. in the research @jcast prompted, it looks like this issue is going to hit an odd turning point. Comcast appears to be introducing streaming services (NBC programming)...if it throttles Netflix traffic over a certain amount but doesn't throttle it's own content (which it apepars not to be as streaming their service will not count towards their data allotments), then we've got a pretty obvious case of Comcast intentionally hurting Netflix to have people swap to their product.
An important but subtle point is that it is not the content provider that accounts for the traffic, but the provider's customer base. Application of special rules for those providers is a distortion of market demand.
Netflix was not responsible for traffic. Customers were responsible for traffic. Netflix can not forcible send data to customers. Netflix can only respond to customers requesting data. It's the customers that are responsible for the requesting the data and they were paying Comcast to deliver that data.
@gman While Netflix cannot force data to people who have no interest in any data at all, Netflix has complete control over how they shape their product. The customer generally has no idea what exact data is moving under the hood and how. That's completely under Netflix's control. No customer can make Netflix send them data Netflix doesn't want to send them.
@ArrowCase "Comcast doesn't control the Internet infrastructure between itself and Netflix's servers" Huh? Sure they do. If, for example, Netflix switches to using Level 3 as their sole transit provider, then Comcast will suddenly find that their pipes to Level 3 are congested and if they don't upgrade them, their customers' traffic to and from Netflix (and others who only reach Comcast through Level 3) will get worse when Netflix changes providers.
@Philipp Can you link to some evidence that Comcast throttled Netflix? I checked all of the links (I think) and didn't see any claim to that effect.
@DavidSchwartz: "While Netflix cannot force data to people who have no interest in any data at all, Netflix has complete control over how they shape their product." - so, what's the intended behaviour on the side of Netflix in your opinion? Intentionally redesign their product in such a way that it becomes less popular? Or are you suggesting Netflix is inefficient in terms of the bandwidth it uses compared to the content that gets delivered? While that is theoretically possible, that is neither the basis of this discussion, nor has any hint to that extent been mentioned here.
@David Schwartz. Your comment does not make any sense. Netflix customers pull data from Netflix servers. Whether its tens or hundreds of gigabytes depending on optimizations still all adds up to a shed load. And your argument applies to all Netflix competitors. What you imply though is that the price of data transfer should be on both the client and the server, while the content is its own. This idea deserves a separate discussion.
If customers are using too much data (regardless of the origin of that data), then ISPs are free to put data caps on their plans, or increase the charge for that data, to either reduce demand or invest raise capital to upgrade infrastructure.
It makes no sense at all for a customer to pay for a data plan which gives them a certain bandwidth, and then also have the ISP charge the content provider if they want the data to arrive.
I am paying my ISP for the bandwidth they offer. The ISPs are trying to claim that somehow netflix is "using" too much data. Netflix is not using any data, their customers are. This is just a convenient way for them to either a) use their control of the network to force the customer to pay for data twice or b) use their leverage in the market to hold their competitors hostage
Discussion on answer by Philipp: Has …
Discussion on answer by Philipp: Has …