Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Confirms Deal For Access To Verizon's Network
An anonymous reader writes "Netflix [on Monday] confirmed that it has reached a deal to gain itself access to Verizon's network. This deal is similar to the one that Netflix already made with Comcast and should improve streaming video quality for Verizon customers. Readers should note that Netflix is paying Verizon and Comcast only to gain access to its networks by by-passing third-party transit providers like Cogent and Level 3. If the FCC's new proposal passes, ISPs like Verizon and Comcast could also charge Netflix for faster direct connections to its customers over the last mile."
monopolists will continue using their position of power.
its like a never ending battle. the ISP probably just paid of the FCC..
Now is the time if you care to have everyone you know stand-up for *decreased* regulation in the last mile and locally, not more. The cost of building high speed access to your location is not in the long-haul but the local access network. Long-haul costs are at their lowest point ever, but getting to the major locations is always the expensive part. Labor costs, including engineering and permits make the cost of installing fiber or other technology insignificant.
Beta is killing Slashdot, after all.
Have you ever lived anywhere else? The US is the best thing going, dude. I speaks from experience.
If the FCC's new proposal passes, ISPs like Verizon and Comcast could also charge Netflix for faster direct connections to its customers over the last mile."
So the ISPs would be able to charge their customers for access (which is often tiered), companies like Netflix for access and then companies like Netflix AGAIN for faster access. The go to excuse that they use is that they're infrastructure can't support giving everyone everything, but they took billions from the government to build out infrastructure and then never did it. Oh, I guess that makes it quadruple dipping?
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
As a customer, where is my rate cut?
Monopolies aside, a great problem with the proposed changes is that ISPs can charge whatever they want for connection fees and don't have to disclose. That allows them to shut out anyone they desire. Way too much power.
Sadly, a customer class action suit might be the only chance for Net Neutrality.
What's that I smell?
In this case, it's garbage. i live in the UK, and I had five different options for providers for my Internet connection. If one was throttling my connection, I'd go elsewhere. The only reason Verizon and Comcast get away with this is because they have a cosy little cartel, and together hold Netflix to ransom.
"Is the Chief Priest an Offlian? Do dragons explode in the wood?"
Oh hai Tom Wheeler.
You are fucking insane. You pay exorbitant prices for terrible service, especially compared to where I live (The Netherlands) and have lived (South Korea).
your country is about the size of a neighborhood in NYC
south korea is the size of a small state in the USA
I believe the strategy will be to provide the end user with the tools to know which feeds are speed up and which are slowed down. Then mobilize the end users to demand their suppliers not effectively throttle the services the end user is paying to access.
IE if the end user gets a tiered service where access to one of the services they pay for is not on par with the others the end user should get a discount.
Then a service like netflix can do competitive analysis: In detroit roadrunner users get this level of service and comcast users get that level of service.
94,060 square miles vs 3,794,101 square miles. 661.9 people per square mile vs. 88.6 people per square mile. Even if you account for something like half of the country being owned by the federal government and thus more or less uninhabited, it's still never a surprise when we have less competition in a particular market.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The fact that Slashdot is treating this as news seems to be confusing some people. Netflix just bought bandwidth from Verizon service, just like a million other people do. You pay for your connection, Netflix pays for theirs.
As the summary mentions, but apparently not clearly enough, this has nothing whatsoever to do with net neutrality. Netflix was getting a connection from Cogent (like I do). Now they are getting a connection from Verizon.
Since they use a lot of bandwidth to alot of places, they buy connections from several ISPs, again just like I do, and everyone else who runs popular web sites. That's how it's done and how it's always been done. The only thing new is that Netflix is whining about paying their bills.
They will INCREASE your fees now that they have "faster connection to Netflix" LMAO Fuck Verizon
By your reasoning the US would have to be way cheaper. Still, I get 300/300 mbps, cable tv and telephone for 60 euro/month. Which is about 80 USD. No fast or slow lanes.
BAD: This is a violation of Net Neutrality because it's giving Netflix right-of-way on other people's ISP links.
GOOD: Netfilx is now placing servers even closer to users, so they have to travel less distance in network terms to get to the users.
That's not the point, just because there is a geographical reason that the US is a corrupt oligarchy ruled by monopolies and cartels, it doesn't mean it isn't worse than smaller countries.
when i watch netflix, i want my streams crossing every tier 1 network there is. i even do automated traceroutes while i watch a show.
a 2 or 3 hop traceroute? that's like a porn trailer without a money shot
This seems to be nothing more than a peering agreement between Netflix Network and Verizon Network. And as usual, if the flow of data is not roughly symmetric, money is flowing the opposite way.
Although I think that if one of the networks isn't a transport network but a content providers own network, the usual term is "multihoming"
bickerdyke
Umm, no. It's way more expensive to run miles of fibre per customer than yards of fibre per customer. Small areas are always cheaper to do than large areas.
Note that one key element of cost of any service is population density, not population. 6000 people within a miles of each other is cheaper and easier to provide service to than 6000 people within 100 miles of each other.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
This is no threat to neutrality. This isn't even a neutrality issue. The carriers WERE neutral. Everyone else's traffic got the same shitty treatment, or good treatment if that was the case. But all traffic was treated equally and that is the goal of neutrality. However, peering relationships typically allow your traffic to pass if you allow my traffic to pass. But any carrier of Netflix is going to cause an imbalance and Netflix's PR wing decided to conflate the issue into one of neutrality, which is rather clever on their part. But you would be wrong to listen to them, and most of the media. Net neutrality is a laudable goal, but the core of this Netflix bru-ha-ha isn't a neutrality issue.
"He's using a quantum encryption scheme! That'll take hours to break!"
Yes, Netflix. Pay then for backbone access. Then pay them for last mile connections. That's probably enough to satisfy Comcast. Why would they want to find more ways to make you pay? Why would they want to squeeze every last cent out of you? That would put you out of business. Surely they don't mean to do that.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Thanks to Netflix all these asshole ISPs are going to start demanding money from everyone.
Thanks Netflix.
And the cost of doing this will be passed down to the consumer. Netflix confirmed that it will be raising its prices for streaming customers by 1 to 2 dollars for new customers only (depending on country). I can only imagine once this trial balloon proves viable, the rate increase will be for existing customers too. Obviously they don't want to lose existing customers now, hence the hold off. Also, a price increase is due thanks to inflation; so there is always that.
Life is not for the lazy.
Note that one key element of cost of any service is population density, not population.
So what's the excuse for high prices and slow speeds in places such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta, etc? Those would certainly qualify as population dense.
The fact of the matter is the FCC, just like Congress and local governments, has been bribed to allow near monopolies to exist rather than enforcing existing laws regarding competition. As a result the U.S. continues to fall further and further behind the rest of the industrialized world in broadband penetration, speed and obviously, price.
Currently we are ranked lower than places in the former Soviet Union for both speed and price, and well behind places such as Taiwan and Hong Kong. You can keep using the excuse of population density and large land area, but the reality of the situation is we have only 3 (maybe 4) providers in this country who have tacitly agreed not to compete with each other, the end result being what we have now: low speeds for high prices.
Link one for reference
Link two for reference
Link three for reference
Note that all of the above links are from November-December of 2013, less than six months ago so the information is up to date.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The US (ie Big Government) is going to reign in who, exactly?
You're asking for a big government solution to an already big government problem.
And I'm not saying that deregulation is a solution. I'm just saying that your "solution" is to have more government doing what the government already does. Don't you see the problem here? It strikes me like education in the States. We pay more than any other country per student for public schooling. When that schooling fails to live up to the standards we would like to see what is the solution? Throw more money at it?
Get your head out of the sand. The government is just as corrupt (if not more so) than and of these "monopolies" you're cawing on about. You're asking the wolves to regulate other wolves by adding more wolves to the pack. What you're asking for isn't a solution.
What's that I smell?
In this case, it's garbage. i live in the UK, and I had five different options for providers for my Internet connection. If one was throttling my connection, I'd go elsewhere. The only reason Verizon and Comcast get away with this is because they have a cosy little cartel, and together hold Netflix to ransom.
And how's the competition in broadcast television providers working out for you?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
And how's the competition in broadcast television providers working out for you?
All two of them?
This argument is 50% true / 50% bullshit. If you carveout a slice of our fine nation from Boston to DC, you get a population density of about 930 people per square mile. Granted, this isn't by any means close to the whole country, but it is very dense as european nation size land masses go. It provides 1/5th of our GDP, 17% of our population and only 2% of our landmass (about 76Kmiles square). This part of the nation has horrible internet access relative to similarly wealthy and dense nations that didn't subsidise while deregulating telecoms. It is also less compeditive, with fewer entrants, and more expensive for similar teir of service. Perhaps instead of giving the telco's more control over their network we should, idk, what are the successful nations doing. Let's copy them.
NYC is fairly fast. time warner's slow speeds are 15/1. FIOS is 15/5
time warner is upgrading their network here and my 15/1 will go up to 50/5 some time this year with no extra cost
the low average speed is people out in rural areas who can't get high speeds. they move out there and then complain why no one wants to spend $50,000 to run fiber to their home for $50 a month in revenue
Verizon subscribers, you just became the product.
This sets an unfortunate precedent. I can't really blame Netflix for wanting to keep their business going but this is going to open the floodgates.
At last count, we have five broadcasters - over the air, Sky, Virgin, BT, and Freeview - so it seems to be working out just fine.
15/5 is shit. The speed should have been doubled years ago and the price should be substantially lower. For 15/5 Verizon wants to charge me $75/month and I'm hardly in the boondocks. For that speed the price should be $45.
My points still stand. We have slow speeds and high prices in this country as a direct result of no competition.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
This is about Netflix switching which provider they use, and Netflix paying their provider for bandwidth. It's exactly like Amazon paying their own bandwidth bills, which they do.
Netflix decided to sell a service which requires a lot of bandwidth - HD video. Now they are crying about paying their bill. I set up the servers for one of the first video sites on the internet back in the 1990s. All that bandwidth was expensive. We paid our bandwidth bill. Fortunately, our calculations were correct - though we paid alot more for bandwidth than the picture sites did, we also got a lot more users, which brought more revenue.
Check the IETF standards discussions for IPv6 and HTTP back in the 1990s. You might see that I've been groking (and designing) this internet thing for a while.
Where you're being tricked is that you don't realize Netflix is basically just asking for free web hosting. Free hosting for the highest bandwidth site in the world. Netflix is NOT a peer of Verizon, so their attempt to call their upstream connection "peering" is misleading.
You pay Verizon to connect YOU to the internet. Netflix wants to pay nobody to connect them to the internet. They wanted Verizon to provide them with free bandwidth by providing multi-gigabit connections for free. Sorry Netflix, if you want gigabits of upstream bandwidth you have to pay for it, just like the rest of us.
Umm, no. It's way more expensive to run miles of fibre per customer than yards of fibre per customer.
That doesn't explain the shitty prices and service in urban areas in the U.S., only the rural ones.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
When Netflix pays their hosting bill, like every other web site does, the benefit to consumers is that they can watch Netflix. Netflix was trying to be the only web site in the world who doesn't pay their bandwidth bill, without having their service cut off for nonpayment.
Initially, Netflix tried what a lot of new webmasters try - buying bandwidth from the cheapest, crappiest provider there us, Cogent. Cogent IS cheap. They are cheap because they don't consistently deliver the bandwidth they promise, and what they promise is low quality (high jitter, medium-high latency). Like most people running web sites, Netflix has discovered that if you want high quality, reliable bandwidth, you need to get it from someone other than Cogent.
Now Netflix is doing what we, and most successful web sites, have always done - buy bandwidth from other companies as well Cogent. You set up your routers to use Cogent when their connection to the destination happens to be good at the moment. If Cogent isn't fast to that destination at the moment, you route the packets via a better, more expensive provider.
>> You pay Verizon to connect you to the internet.
> Actually: I pay Verizon for a connection to NetFlix.
Verizon sells Netflix service? Where can I find that service plan on their web site? I only see internet service.
> I started in the 1980s, so I win
If you've been running networks for more than a month, you know Cogent IS the cheapest, crappiest, upstream you can buy. Netflix discovered WHY Cogent IS the cheapest - that Cogent doesn't consistently provide top quality. You and I have known that for 20 years.
yeah, verizon spent over $100 billion to deploy FIOS and run fiber backbones to their cell towers. all the money was paid by issuing debt.
your monthly price has to reflect the cost of paying it off along with paying interest on it
and they still have to send broadcast TV through their network which limits the speed of the internet. cord cutters are still around 5% of the total market
Perhaps an idea with roots in the end to end principal.
(Dumb, general purpose network connecting smart, special purpose ends.)
This is the idea that made the Internet different than anything we have had before.
This is what lets a little guy making a new app flourish without building a special network for it.
We shouldn't need to rethink this idea because an over-the-top app makes money.
Perhaps we need to rethink how things work when 'flourish' means an app consumes 30% of the total B/W.
Likely areas to address are who does what, how it works technically, and how is it paid for.
From a technical standpoint, providing universal connections to random traffic loads is hard.
Netflix brings concentrated correlated loads which change depending on users desires.
Supporting these loads is even harder.
One way is to provide specific paths for the loads as they crop up.
This is random peering and we can see that it is a path away from a general purpose network.
In theory, one way to get back to the general network is a single, zero cost exchange point.
Any connection has two end hosts. Each host is responsible for getting his traffic to/from the exchange point.
In practice, a worldwide network can't run on a single exchange point, so this won't work.
But it gives a hint as to a path to something that might work.
Another second possible solution is a limited number of exchange points with the following rules.
Each isp is responsible for carrying traffic from the nearest exchange point to it's customer.
Each isp is responsible for carrying traffic from their customer to the far end exchange point.
This solution both defines a technical and payment structure.
If bandwidth and congestion rules were added, it would also define what Internet service is to an end customer.
A third and practical set of rules is to add random peering to the second solution.
If a pair of ISP's agree to address some load by peering outside an exchange point,
then this is fine, but it doesn't change the responsibility to meet at the exchange point.
This would set the starting point for peering negotiations to what it costs each ISP to get to the exchange point.
I wonder if this might be a sufficient architectural framework to permit common carrier regulation of peering.
Too many people who would prefer to have equal access to everything... until they can't watch their show without it buffering.
What you are really saying is that the way most people use their broadband Internet service is changing ---- and triple AAA streaming media content from Netflix and others has priority.
Well the BBC is paid for by the TV license which is essentially a tax.
Nevertheless we have channels on the free to air terrestrial service operated by a wide range of companies and more available on pay services from several vendors using various technologies (one sattelite, one cable and a number of IPTV afaict).
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
15/5 is a complete and total joke. I live in a small city (only about 60,000, in Canada - which by the way, far less densely populated) - and I have a 50/30 mbps connection - with 250/30 readily available if I felt the need. With no usage caps, or purposely slowing down netflix or any of the other BS that goes on with US connections.
You only think that 15/5 is decent because you have no other real options and don't know any better.
I don't understand why people are paying shit prices and getting slow speeds.
I have FiOS and I pay 80$/mo for 50/25 that usually runs at 64/34. I think that's fairly reasonable. I could upgrade to 150/50 for something like 130$/mo, but I don't need those obnoxiously high speeds when I can D/L a full 1.2GB movie in 3min on my current connection. Oh and I live just outside Dallas, TX if geographical location is going to be brought into it.
"That's right...I said it."
75/35 verizon fios is $95 a month in Baltimore County, MD. I have no idea where you are but you're getting shafted.
I thought crossing the streams was bad?
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
USA's metro density is almost the same as Japan's.
Running fiber is about 10% of the total cost. You may want to try a different argument. Comcast spent $10k/customer upgrading their copper network over the past 5 years, even if you were out in the wilderness with 1 house per square mile, the cost of running fiber is still only about $3.5k-$5k. Actually, it's more expensive to run cables in high density populations because of the lack of actual ground. Much more expensive to dig up concrete than to poke a hole in some grass.
The optimal density is near that of a suburb for around $1.8k/house, not some 80 story apartment building. On average, it costs about $2.5k to hook up a house, but only $700 to pass it with fiber. "Passing" a house just means you run fiber to the property, but you don't send anyone over to actually plug everything in. And the price difference between dedicated and shared fiber is about 1%. Many ISPs doing fiber use dedicated fiber to the house, but multiplex them together at the CO to increase port densities and reduce power costs, but it's relatively simple for one of these ISPs to quickly switch a given customer over to a dedicated active Ethernet port without making any other changes.
$50k to run fiber to a single house, but $700/house to run fiber to a bunch of houses at the same time. Funny how that works.
Yay, now they can spend less on content licensing for stuff I actually want to see in favor of them streaming things I don't want to see EVEN FASTER. Yay! Oh wait, I'm not a Verizon customer so actually they're just plain wasting my money with no benefit. Awesome. Why don't they really piss me off and add ads too to pay for the priority bandwidth. Ads for Verizon even. That'd complete the cycle of stupidity pretty nicely.
By the way, I'm deeply confused. Netflix does not send data above 3 megabits. I have a 15 megabit connection. Time Warner can throttle it 75% and it won't make a difference. So who cares.
How's it working out for you? Less than 10% of Americans still go with OTA broadcasts.
I don't know what the comparable figures are in the UK, but I suspect that they too are moving towards getting their entertainment via media that make the broadcast oligopoly irrelevant. You probably don't care about broadcast providers there and wouldn't care about it if you moved there.
Which Metro? Maybe some, but definitely not all. The US is large and diverse, not everyone is packed in like sardines.
Karnal
So if municipal broadband spent $700 per house to pass everybody with fiber,
then perhaps a competitive set of ISP's vying for access to the fiber could do the house hookup for less than $2500.
Those places pay for the over all infrastructure served in smaller markets.
Non of the places you list are not countries. Try to understand that. They can't say "update all infrastructure"
" to allow near monopolies"
you really have no clue how it works do you? You can't get good speed or options? That's a LOCAL government issue. Usually city, sometime county.
The FCC doesn't set that.
That's funny, becasue I get calls from other provider to try and offer me lower prices. I like the quality and service, so I dont mind paying a bit more then the competition is offering.
50/50 50 a month.
Also, the Netherlands government system makes it easier for them to dictate infrastructure issues.
It's complex, seemingly more complex then you can handle; which is fine. Could it be better? yes. Should it be a common carrier? yes. DOes the FCC dictate local markets? no.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, your point does not stand at all
"15/5 is shit. The speed should have been doubled years ago and the price should be substantially lower.
based on what? Until you can explain why there total infrastructures cost, current in ground maintenance, rolling out fibre, support, employees, local competition can all be cheaper. Also, how much it it after local fees and taxes?
Really, it should be an infrastructures item for the Feds, like roads.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Same here, in tualatin Oregon.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
But the telcos serve the ENTIRE NATION, and those costs are spread out over all their customers.
The cost/fees are fine, for what we have based on the current economic model for private companies. really, you should be focusing on getting to declared a common carriers, and having the Feds provide infrastructure.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
about netflix.
http://blog.netflix.com/2014/0...
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+J...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
fuck netflix, they don't give a shit about net neutrality. they rather submit like little slaves to big telecoms, rather than fight for the people to ensure everyone has fair access to bandwidth.
"paying for access to their network"? horse shit. the consumer already pays for access to their network(s)
i'm off to get the latest 0day, never ever giving a dime to netflix or any entertainment company .
Keep telling yourself that :) You can have it.
even the major cities only have 2 choices for internet... and by metro, he means NYC, Houston, etc.
Wtf? I thought this discussion was about Internet connections... why don't you just chuck some random shit in, like you're all offended because someone's comments could be construed as a criticism of your country?
Clearly you're upset because everyone in your nation is being screwed by the ISPs. But if you are, don't go defending your country by putting up bollocks arguments against what is patently obvious.
"Is the Chief Priest an Offlian? Do dragons explode in the wood?"
Sorry I wasn't more clear, but that $2.5k average includes all costs, like laying fiber all, all hardware, including the datacenter, and installing the ONT and TV boxes. about 60% of that $2.5k is just sending someone to the house, which is the bulk of the entire cost, and is the same whether your install cable, DSL, or fiber. Except for the copper networks, the network is a much greater part of the entire cost. Comcast spent about $10k/house upgrading their copper network to DOCSIS3 to handle 100mb. While DOCSIS3 can technically handle higher speeds, Comcast's network couldn't handle much more than a 100mb average for $10k. But for $2.5, they could easily handle 1gb with fiber.
The size of the country has little to do with the fact that your most densely populated areas still don't have any real choice - densely populated areas that vastly exceed anything we have.
bollocks
LOL!
Major Cities != Metro to everyone. Large difference amongst US metro areas.
Population density per square mile as averaged over the entire country is really not relevant. Someone living in the sticks is going to have limited connectivity options whether they're in the UK, USA or most other countries (even our favourite poster-children like S Korea and Japan).
A town/city with 2k or 20k or 200k or 2m people is a city with 2k or 20k or 200k or 2m people in either country and, geological differences and labour costs notwithstanding, //should// cost approximately the same amount of money to service (and thus, retail prices should be pretty similar).
I put to you that if 2 last-mile projects were simultaneously undertaken to provide 1,000 customers in 10 a square mile area, but one was allowed a monopoly on it's last mile and one was not and had to be open/unbundled and had 5 operators competing for those customers as detailed by cid=46867081, the latter would have far cheaper end-user pricing, irrespective of which country/ies we were talking about.
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)