Myself, I think it's far more likely that ISPs are about to successfully run out the clock on all this, kill net neutrality, and then they won't have to ever worry about this or any "transparency" efforts again. Everyone can just pay more for ever-crappier service, and there will be no relevant data to examine, because there will be no "standard" level of service anyone has access to, and therefore no way to compare one level of service to any other level of service at another time or via someone else's product...or at least, no way to do anything about it other than impotently gripe.
I find it remarkable that you have an Eeyore, "With Folded Hands" take on the first demonstrably successful action against these last mile ISPs.
Companies like Verizon don't casually threaten legal action, this is really getting to them.
(Perhaps because one of Verizon's unique selling propositions is the quality of their networks, this has the potential for broad damage to their brand.)
"Companies like Verizon don't casually threaten legal action, this is really getting to them."
Are you sure? As someone who has dealt with more than 40 different threats of legal action from major companies, I would have guessed that this is more or less their default response.
Ah, I should clarify, "to those who can fight back effectively at every level".
It also depends on the domain, e.g. Disney protecting IP or ASCAP uncompensated public performances is one thing, and the latter's model can run into PR buzz saws, e.g. Boy and Girl Scouts sings at camps.
Whereas this is part of a big fight that goes right to the heart of a significant part of Verizon's business, and an even more significant part of their potential future business. When Disney threatens a day care center for having an unlicensed depiction of one of their characters, it's routine. Whereas I expect this threatening letter to Netflix was run way up the flagpole; Verizon hasn't typically been that maladroit with PR, have they?
In what domains have you received threats of legal action?
Perhaps you're right, and I'm being too pessimistic and harsh about this. But the perspective gained from watching the big ISPs over the last couple decades doesn't make me hopeful.
Why would you say this is a "demonstrably successful" action, btw? Has Verizon actually changed any of their business practices for the better? So far, all I can see is that they are tossing around legal threats. That's not progress; that's Verizon's gigantic legal team gearing up to make sure Verizon can continue to do Absolutely Nothing Positive about the issues in question.
Ultimately this is a political battle, and Netflix is demonstrating they can get the ears of their downtrodden subscribers. This is an existential threat to the business model of the big last mile providers save perhaps Century, and might even help push them into the worst case of common carrier status, as the FCC is threatening.
Right now I don't read that threat as credible, but, let's say, how about after the first few Congresscritters are sent home to spend more time with their families after an election? We gun owners, probably less numerous than voting Internet users (don't believe gun ownership self-reporting in surveys, for obvious reasons), with nothing more than our organized votes, have moved mountains at every level of government over the last three decades. Ask ex-Speaker of the House Tom Foley about our power (first Speaker to be turned out of office since the Civil War in 1862).
As the Internet, and good Internet service, gets every more important, the potential is there. Getting back to my analogy, the gun grabbers had a fantastic run for a couple of decades (or more than a century, depending on how you count this and gun control starting to really bite non-minorities), before politically effective resistance started showing results.
I am continually surprised that Netflix has failed to play any real hardball. Seed (ie: astroturf) a class-action lawsuit against Verizon for breach of contract. Make a big PAC donation to the attorney general in a consumer-friendly state like Washington or Massachusetts and let the dogs run. Get the city council of a largish and liberal locale like Seattle to consider a municipal internet service. Heck, cut off service to Verizon subscribers the day House of Cards comes out.
I've always thought that Netflix was in a tough spot when it comes to cutting consumers off, because (1) they'd be losing money, and (2) they'd need to responsibly refund those consumers or else they'll look terrible.
However, TV networks cut off access to cable provider customers when they can't reach a deal on price... so why can't Netflix do the same? I mean, if ISPs really want to turn the Internet into a cable-like place, they should expect that similar disputes are going to happen.
You know... that's not a bad idea. So long as they refund (or more likely extend) the accounts for people accessing Netflix from those ISPs.
Or, maybe Netflix should intentionally limit the number of people that could access their service from a given ISP so that the overall quality is maintained? If you try to access the service and you get denied for ISP capacity reasons, then you'd get that day refunded.
They need to do something to make sure that the customer knows where the problem is. But, instead of playing too rough, I think publicly shaming the ISPs is the best approach. At least for now.
Something akin to the cable companies cutting channels until deals are met might be blocking certain shows only (netflix originals for instance). As long as there was a warning when you signed up I suppose (certain networks may not be able to stream netflix originals).
I don't know, this strikes me as "real" hardball. Many of the things you suggest are also that, but ultimately this is a political problem and will be won or lost in the political arena. And Netflix is getting a lot of voters pissed off at Verizon, and no doubt other ISPs in the future.
Some of the things you suggest will affect politicians, but the ultimate one is a credible threat of sending them home to spend more time with their families after an election. It's how gun owners have moved mountains starting in the mid-80s or so (the area I'm most familiar with), and if Netflix is playing the long game, it's how they're going to win ... and overall help us win the net neutrality battle.
>Heck, cut off service to Verizon subscribers the day House of Cards comes out.
They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. That will just make Verizon subscribers mad.
They should just flash up messages every so often when the network is congested to get people to call their congresspeople and ask them to support net neutrality and firing ex-comcast lobbyists from the FCC.
I'm not too sure. Netflix has one hell of a popular product. And that gives them leverage. The ISPs have a product too, but it's nowhere near as good as other countries around the world.
When you have a popular product, you have customers on your side, and that's a huge boon for Netflix.
I agree that our bandwidth to price ratio is shitty in this country. But until we have viable competition in THIS country, our rates won't come down. John Oliver's rant on Net Neutrality (ironically on HBO) sums this up pretty nicely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU
When you say "bandwidth to price ratio is shitty in this country," are you in a country where you pay $79.95/month for 250GB quota on ADSL2+ which connects at 6Mbps?
We're in a country where we pay $50/month for 150GB quota on ADSL2+ which connects at 5Mbps.
There's a $10/50GB overage charge. So if we were to hit the quota you have, we'd be paying roughly the same ($70/month). Note that the price listed does not include taxes and fees, which bump it up to within a few dollars of your $79 price point.
Myself, I think it's far more likely that ISPs are about to successfully run out the clock on all this, kill net neutrality, and then they won't have to ever worry about this or any "transparency" efforts again. Everyone can just pay more for ever-crappier service, and there will be no relevant data to examine, because there will be no "standard" level of service anyone has access to, and therefore no way to compare one level of service to any other level of service at another time or via someone else's product...or at least, no way to do anything about it other than impotently gripe.