Verizon Seeks Payment For Carrying Netflix Traffic

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Here we go again with this crap. So they want to be paid by us AND Netflix for the same traffic?

Netflix has been at odds with Verizon and other broadband providers over how much Netflix streaming video they will carry without being paid additional fees. Now the conflict is slowing Netflix traffic.
Click to expand...
 
So we will be getting unlimited data plans again.. right?

I am so ready to drop Verizon once my contract is up.
 
My quality has suffered after the ruling of the appeal from FCC. Funny, that no other service has an issue with delivering streaming HD content. Such as what can be provided from Amazon, Vudu, et al.

I think there needs to be a lawsuit against the ISP's that say you can do X (e.g. like blazing fast Internet) in the advertisements, but then regulate on their terms to increase consumer cost; so as to make money.

Fuck them.....this needs to be nipped in the bud ASAP.
 
I'd say vote with your wallet, but for most places there is no other option.
 
I would love to dump VZ but the only alternative I have is Comcast and I just switched from them after receiving warnings for exceeding 250GB data/month.

I stream Netflix/Hulu/Amazon video daily as I don't have cable TV. There are 4 main users in my house so over a month we easily stream 250GB HD video. Not to mention the gaming downloads and daily updates. A single game can be 5-40 GB (Hitman, Sleeping dogs).

Hilarious that the ruling stated that there was ample competition in the marketplace. There is NO competition near me as VZ and Comcast have a stranglehold.

Fuck these corporations and their greed.
 
Can I get some hoorays for free market capitalism here!
Of course its the opposite, if there WAS a free market and one could chose from a bunch of ISPs, then the ones that did not slow down traffic, that did not place data cap, that did not do all this crap, those would be favored to profit more... how things are right now, ISPs can squeeze many internet-based companies no problem... I mean what is the customer going to do? write a letter? heheh
 
How can they legally ask a company to give them money for their intended use?
 
And they say Net Neutrality being struck down isn't bad for consumers... :(
 
Netflix and Youtube constitute just over half of all North American internet traffic.

Sort of like the guy at your apartment complex who parks his big rig across 5 of the 10 parking spaces. Then when the apartment manager approaches him about the disproportionate amount of space he occupies, people scream at him for being so greedy, and demand laws preventing apartment managers from telling anyone where they can park on their private property. All because the tenants all are addicted to watching TV at big rig douche's place. Have you seen his DVD collection?
 
Verizon: We don't make any money off of Netflix! It's costing us big!

Customer: so... Can I watch my Netflix yet?

Verizon: Stay quiet and pay your bill. If you're lucky, we might let you have 50GB per month once Netflix pays us.
 
Stuff like this and Comcast buying TWC make me convince that Netflix is ultimately doomed. $8/month for unlimted movie and TV streaming is simply too good of a deal for content/cable companies to let it keep going. Comcast and TWC both own movie studios as well, so all that content will be gone from Netflix.
 
This is why it is absolutely CRUCIAL that the FCC classify all internet access as common carrier services and enforce complete net neutrality.

ISP's are scumbags, and the only way to keep them honest is to regulate the absolute crap out of them.

Of course, with the current head of the FCC being a former telecom lobbyist, that will never happen... At least not without some enormous pressure from the white house.

It's the wolf guarding the henhouse... Disgusting.

Oh, how I love conflict of interest.
 
Uvaman said:
Can I get some hoorays for free market capitalism here!
Of course its the opposite, if there WAS a free market and one could chose from a bunch of ISPs, then the ones that did not slow down traffic, that did not place data cap, that did not do all this crap, those would be favored to profit more... how things are right now, ISPs can squeeze many internet-based companies no problem... I mean what is the customer going to do? write a letter? heheh
Click to expand...

The market is "free" in the sense of illustrating how it would behave naturally without any regulation. Free to consolidate entirely and form monopolies. There is a MASSIVE barrier to entry in infrastructure-type industries and thus it's far more profitable to gouge customers etc. until there's backlash/competition and then drop prices dramatically or buy up the competition until they're gone.

Didn't we all learn about Standard Oil and the Bell System?

There is no recompense for consumers - corporations like this are so large they can squash competition or purchase it outright prior to it getting a foothold. High barriers to entry and large corporations with high cash reserves and a long corporate memory throw a massive wrench into markets' abilities to promote competition.
 
I'm sorry, aren't they already getting paid?

Isn't the customer paying for Internet service?
Isn't Netflix paying for Internet service?

Feels like the ISPs (who just happen to offer TV Service) don't like the well priced competition.
 
Stiletto said:
Netflix and Youtube constitute just over half of all North American internet traffic.

Sort of like the guy at your apartment complex who parks his big rig across 5 of the 10 parking spaces. Then when the apartment manager approaches him about the disproportionate amount of space he occupies, people scream at him for being so greedy, and demand laws preventing apartment managers from telling anyone where they can park on their private property. All because the tenants all are addicted to watching TV at big rig douche's place. Have you seen his DVD collection?
Click to expand...

I look at it like this.

The tennants are paying for the 5 parking spaces the big rig is using up, so the apartment manager shouldn't have a say in it.

I think the real problem is, nobody knows how much data costs, so there is a disconnect between paying $xxx for xxMb/s.

I really think Data should be charged by the MB/GB, and have the maximum amount of bandwidth that can be handled by the network at the time(perhaps charge more for peak load times).
 
This what happens when the broadband provider is also a content provider, conflicts of interest.

The FCC should have declared broadband service a "common carrier" from the start, forcing these companies to spin off their content arm into an independent entity that's competing on equal footing with others in the market.

Ideally would've been better to own the pipe the way we own the roads, and let companies offer services on top, but that train has sailed a long time ago.
 
They want their cake (per gb charges) and to eat it to (a high monthly fee)...

Pick 1... not both.
I really like the internet, I don't Need the internet.
 
Haserath said:
Verizon: We don't make any money off of Netflix! It's costing us big!

Customer: so... Can I watch my Netflix yet?

Verizon: Stay quiet and pay your bill. If you're lucky, we might let you have 50GB per month once Netflix pays us.
Click to expand...

It's more like...

Verizon: We see you take up 60% of our traffic and yet pay no fees to us for use of our network.

Netflix: You should hook up and use your new equipment so we can stream even more traffic over your network. We pay Cogent, so its all good.

Verizon: You are using most of our bandwidth and pay us nothing, yet you want us to hook up to more of your equipment so you can use even more of our bandwidth for free?

Netflix: But your customers want our service, you should do it for them.

Verizon: So we should continue to pay to upgrade our equipment to provide more bandwidth so you can make more money off of our customers using our bandwidth for free?

Netflix: Exactly.
 
plupien79 said:
I really like the internet, I don't Need the internet.
Click to expand...

This shouldn't be an issue. They treat data like it's a finite quantity and they only have so much they can give out. Something needs to be done about our ISPs here in the States because they fucking suck. They don't deliver performance compared to other countries and they just happen to be the greediest sons of bitches in this country.
 
It does make you wonder why we pay ISP's altogether. If we pay for bandwidth, why are they telling us how to use that bandwidth? Or more specifically, how we can't use that bandwidth. We pay them.
 
Haserath said:
I think the real problem is, nobody knows how much data costs, so there is a disconnect between paying $xxx for xxMb/s.
Click to expand...

Last I read it was a fraction of a penny per terabyte or something of the sort. And going down every year.
 
Haserath said:
I look at it like this.

The tennants are paying for the 5 parking spaces the big rig is using up, so the apartment manager shouldn't have a say in it.
Click to expand...

So the apartment manager shouldn't have a say in what people do with his private property? At all? Are there any limits?

I think the real problem is, nobody knows how much data costs, so there is a disconnect between paying $xxx for xxMb/s.

I really think Data should be charged by the MB/GB, and have the maximum amount of bandwidth that can be handled by the network at the time(perhaps charge more for peak load times).
Click to expand...

You just made enemies with 99% of the tech community.
 
NoOther said:
It's more like...

Verizon: We see you take up 60% of our traffic and yet pay no fees to us for use of our network.

Netflix: You should hook up and use your new equipment so we can stream even more traffic over your network. We pay Cogent, so its all good.

Verizon: You are using most of our bandwidth and pay us nothing, yet you want us to hook up to more of your equipment so you can use even more of our bandwidth for free?

Netflix: But your customers want our service, you should do it for them.

Verizon: So we should continue to pay to upgrade our equipment to provide more bandwidth so you can make more money off of our customers using our bandwidth for free?

Netflix: Exactly.
Click to expand...

Just like Google and other internet services, Netflix pays for their bandwidth already. The "not paying" BS is just deceptive PR speak, meant to deceive the gullible.
 
Kai said:
It does make you wonder why we pay ISP's altogether. If we pay for bandwidth, why are they telling us how to use that bandwidth? Or more specifically, how we can't use that bandwidth. We pay them.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

We pay them for a service to use as we please.

They should be nothing but a dumb network that ends at our doorstep we can do whatever we please with.

We already pay more than pretty much anywhere in the industrialized world, for worse service, and now they want to double dip and charge the other end as well?

It's opportunistic and disgusting. They let their infrastructure languish, don't expand into new areas, offer us slower speeds than the rest of the world had 10 years ago, for higher prices than they pay now, they reel in the dough and now they want to limit, and extort to get money from anyone who sends traffic over their network as well. It is absolutely disgusting!

It's outright extortion. The ISP's are some of the worst, most corrupt companies of all, and the only way to fix this is to regulate them into submission.

I'm starting more and more to believe that the big ISP's need to be killed off all together, and replaced with an Interstate system type internet backbone, from which small independent local ISP's can rent access to do th efinal mile out to houses. This would provide some REAL competition.
 
NoOther said:
It's more like...

Verizon: We see you take up 60% of our traffic and yet pay no fees to us for use of our network.

Netflix: You should hook up and use your new equipment so we can stream even more traffic over your network. We pay Cogent, so its all good.

Verizon: You are using most of our bandwidth and pay us nothing, yet you want us to hook up to more of your equipment so you can use even more of our bandwidth for free?

Netflix: But your customers want our service, you should do it for them.

Verizon: So we should continue to pay to upgrade our equipment to provide more bandwidth so you can make more money off of our customers using our bandwidth for free?

Netflix: Exactly.
Click to expand...

Not quite...
The ISP customers are requesting traffic from Netflix... Netflix isn't forcing traffic anywhere, it's requested.
For the OpenConnect... that reduces the Peering traffic, which means it costs less to serve customers the content they are requesting, helping both companies, and giving the consumer a better experience.

This seems like a problem of bean counters getting pissy with customers that want to get TV service somewhere else but have no problem PAYING for internet.
 
On the one hand, it's not as if Netflix usage is in any way a breach of the intended usage of internet bandwidth. Netflix streaming that uses x amount of bandwidth vs. downloading or browsing that uses the same x amount, it shouldn't make a damn difference.

But on the other, what hooks me is that earlier example of a landlord and the dude using 5 spaces. If he's paying for the spaces and all, good for him, it's every bit his right. But if dude is then turning around and making money on those spaces somehow (for example, subletting out that space), then you feel like you're on the wrong end of the business model.

I'm still on the side against the ISPs; if they want an equitable solution, their only options are to either selectively filter content/types of usage (big ethical no-no) or offer more "spaces" and build in greater costs per (not good for the rest of us).
 
noobthegreat said:
On the one hand, it's not as if Netflix usage is in any way a breach of the intended usage of internet bandwidth. Netflix streaming that uses x amount of bandwidth vs. downloading or browsing that uses the same x amount, it shouldn't make a damn difference.

But on the other, what hooks me is that earlier example of a landlord and the dude using 5 spaces. If he's paying for the spaces and all, good for him, it's every bit his right. But if dude is then turning around and making money on those spaces somehow (for example, subletting out that space), then you feel like you're on the wrong end of the business model.

I'm still on the side against the ISPs; if they want an equitable solution, their only options are to either selectively filter content/types of usage (big ethical no-no) or offer more "spaces" and build in greater costs per (not good for the rest of us).
Click to expand...

The big problem is that there may be 10 spaces, but the ISP sold parking to 100 people.

And more and more people are looking for somewhere to park.
 
Wierdo said:
Just like Google and other internet services, Netflix pays for their bandwidth already. The "not paying" BS is just deceptive PR speak, meant to deceive the gullible.
Click to expand...

No, not like Google and other internet services. One service is taking up 60% of their bandwidth, one service. So its not the same thing at all. Plus they are using Verizon Bandwidth to put out a competing product to FIOS TV, yet Verizon gets nothing for it. And it isn't just Verizon against Netflix, its really Verizon and Cogent. ISPs have peering agreements with other ISPs to use each other's networks to deliver their traffic. Part of Verizon's complaint is that Cogent is using far more of Verizon's bandwidth than Verizon is using of theirs. So basically what they are saying to Netflix is that there needs to be a new peering agreement between Verizon and Cogent. That is a perfectly legitimate gripe on Verizon's part.

Unfortunately for Verizon, all the consumer sees is that they can't get Netflix data and the consumer doesn't care about peering agreements between ISPs or that Cogent is belligerent and refuses to even pay the already agreed upon rates nor restructure the peering agreement for current circumstances. So Verizon throttles traffic from Cogent as a response to Cogent refusing to pay, and the consumer only sees that they can't get Netflix.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040638152 said:
It's outright extortion. The ISP's are some of the worst, most corrupt companies of all, and the only way to fix this is to regulate them into submission.

I'm starting more and more to believe that the big ISP's need to be killed off all together, and replaced with an Interstate system type internet backbone, from which small independent local ISP's can rent access to do th efinal mile out to houses. This would provide some REAL competition.
Click to expand...

YES! Let's just use government power to regulate the telecom companies! Just like we did 30 years ago! That made sure that telecoms would never again gain the power to...

...oh.
 
plupien79 said:
Not quite...
The ISP customers are requesting traffic from Netflix... Netflix isn't forcing traffic anywhere, it's requested.
For the OpenConnect... that reduces the Peering traffic, which means it costs less to serve customers the content they are requesting, helping both companies, and giving the consumer a better experience.

This seems like a problem of bean counters getting pissy with customers that want to get TV service somewhere else but have no problem PAYING for internet.
Click to expand...

As I stated above it has to do with a peering agreement. Requesting traffic is not really a valid complaint. Also the OpenConnect does not necessarily reduce Peering traffic. You can only optimize routes so much. Also you have to realize that part of that algorithm will then send more of certain traffic over Cogent rather than Verizon lines, perhaps reducing some bandwidth, but perhaps also causing detrimental affects to other traffic and bandwidth. Also Verizon has no control over that portion, its all in the hands of Cogent. So its not an equal situation at all. Cogent/Netflix could also agree to pay the usual peering agreement fees and/or restructure the peering agreement. But they refuse to. The Fault lies in both places, not just Verizon.
 
Stiletto said:
YES! Let's just use government power to regulate the telecom companies! Just like we did 30 years ago! That made sure that telecoms would never again gain the power to...

...oh.
Click to expand...

The power to what? Create thousands of jobs, lower prices and spur innovation?. . . oh
 
It's like saying your dishwasher uses the most water in your house so the dishwasher manufacturer's should pay the water company more directly, Or they will put a separate meter on your dishwasher..

Gotta love profit centers folks, that's what this nonsense is. Just looking for new ways to bill you more, and like with extra "bandwidth" charges, if they beat there chests enough, people will buy in.
 
NoOther said:
As I stated above it has to do with a peering agreement. Requesting traffic is not really a valid complaint. Also the OpenConnect does not necessarily reduce Peering traffic. You can only optimize routes so much. Also you have to realize that part of that algorithm will then send more of certain traffic over Cogent rather than Verizon lines, perhaps reducing some bandwidth, but perhaps also causing detrimental affects to other traffic and bandwidth. Also Verizon has no control over that portion, its all in the hands of Cogent. So its not an equal situation at all. Cogent/Netflix could also agree to pay the usual peering agreement fees and/or restructure the peering agreement. But they refuse to. The Fault lies in both places, not just Verizon.
Click to expand...

The consumer is already paying Verizon to access a certain amount of bandwidth per month. Why should Netflix also have to pay for the same bandwidth? They're double-dipping. Charging both Netflix AND the consumer for the same data. Yes, Netflix is a lot of that data ... but the customer is already paying for XXXGB/month. Who the heck cares what it is? Obviously, the ISP's do because they have competing services and want to ensure their service has an advantage.
 
Stiletto said:
YES! Let's just use government power to regulate the telecom companies! Just like we did 30 years ago! That made sure that telecoms would never again gain the power to...

...oh.
Click to expand...

Honestly, under the Ma Bell days, we may not have had much choice, but we had the best telecom network in the world...

Can't say that now....

I am a firm believer of competition driving innovation, but when it comes to utilities there simply is not enough competition for this model to work at all, which is why public intervention is necessary.

Capitalistic progress only works when there is competition. This is why so many public interest utilities traditionally have been regulated, and deregulation usually only makes things worse.
 
"Our customers hate us when we raise rates, and customer B is threatening our service. So we will shove the cost off to company B which the customer subscribes to so they will blame company B for high prices instead of us."

Typical shell game companies play.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040638152 said:
Exactly.

We pay them for a service to use as we please.

They should be nothing but a dumb network that ends at our doorstep we can do whatever we please with.

We already pay more than pretty much anywhere in the industrialized world, for worse service, and now they want to double dip and charge the other end as well?

It's opportunistic and disgusting. They let their infrastructure languish, don't expand into new areas, offer us slower speeds than the rest of the world had 10 years ago, for higher prices than they pay now, they reel in the dough and now they want to limit, and extort to get money from anyone who sends traffic over their network as well. It is absolutely disgusting!

It's outright extortion. The ISP's are some of the worst, most corrupt companies of all, and the only way to fix this is to regulate them into submission.

I'm starting more and more to believe that the big ISP's need to be killed off all together, and replaced with an Interstate system type internet backbone, from which small independent local ISP's can rent access to do th efinal mile out to houses. This would provide some REAL competition.
Click to expand...


Yup, just kill the large ISPs, and let the local/state governments control/lease the infrastructure (which was subsidized by the tax payers anyway...) to smaller local ISPs for reasonable costs. Bring some actual competition to the market and all this bullshit will go away on it's own....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top