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."

Comments

Triple dipping?

[Dancindan84]

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?

Where's my rate cut?

[Mr D from 63]

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.

Re:Where's my rate cut?

[Dancindan84]

And unfortunately that's going to be the downfall of net neutrality. Too many people who would prefer to have equal access to everything... until they can't watch their show without it buffering. The big ISPs know that the will to fight is low enough they can do what they want and get away with it.

Re:Where's my rate cut?

[Jason Levine]

It's even worse than that. The big monopolies know that the "bad connection issues" aren't likely to blow up in their faces - or, if they do, customers will be powerless to do something about it. If you're Joe User and Netflix won't stream, chances are you'll blame one of two entities: Netflix or your ISP.

If you blame Netflix, you can put pressure on Netflix by threatening to leave. After all, there are competing services such as Amazon Prime. (You can argue that said services might not be as good as Netflix, but they are still alternatives.) So Netflix would feel pressure to do whatever it takes to get the connection "working" again, even if it meant paying the ISP's fast lane bribery fee.

If you blame your ISP, you can try to threaten to leave, but your ISP will just laugh at you. Most Americans have only one or two ISPs in their area. If you leave the one and the other does the same thing, what option do you have? And if you only have access to one ISP, what option do you have? You can ditch all Internet access, but the ISPs know you won't do that. So you're forced to grumble and complain online, but still pay whatever the ISP demands you pay for the level of service they deign to provide you.

The ISPs are essentially playing a game of chicken with Netflix except the ISPs are in an armored SUV and Netflix is riding a bicycle.

Not news. Netflix bought net connection like us

[raymorris]

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.

Re:Not news. Netflix bought net connection like us

[kaiser423]

Pretty succinct summary, but it ignores some of the subtleties. Netflix was paying Cogent, and then Verizon and Comcast basically clogged that interconnect either by neglecting it, not upgrading it, or what have you, making the Cogent connection useless and used it as a bargaining chip in negotiations. Being able to degrade your competitors is typically a regulatory issue, hence the call for net neutrality. It obviously wasn't a technical issue given that the ISPs were able to triple their speeds overnight. I don't think that there's a problem if Netflix wants to buy bandwidth directly from the ISP if it's cheaper/better. But, given that the ISP can essentially force Netflix's hand by making all other competitors service substantially worse, it seems more like rent seeking than a competitive marketplace.

Re:Not news. Netflix bought net connection like us

[JerryLove]

I'm not sure you've entirely grocked the idea of an "Internet" and are confusing it with an "Intranet".

Verizon has advertized that I can buy X amount of internet connection, and then (deliberately) failed to create the upstream connections to deliver on that promise. Netflix, one of those up-stream providers who pays Cogent for access to the internet, is now having to pay Verizon for access to its intranet which, according to my earlier statement, is supposed to be internet.

Now we all realize that bandwidth upstream isn't infinite. If everybody and their brother decided to attach to my server at home, they cannot expect that only their paid-for internet connection would determine their connection speed (as mine would come into play), and even at a peering level, congestion is an inevitability at some point.

But the goal of Verizon, in servicing its customers, is *supposed* to be doing the best it can to provide promised internet badnwith to locations that its customers are tyring to reach. We know they will not succeed perfectly.

The issue is when Verison begins to, for the sake of profit, selectively limit peering. They are no longer attempting to fulfill their promise to give me internet access at a given bandwidth. It is this willfulness that moves us from "the way the thing works" to our gripe with the way the major ISPs are operating.

Let me put this in a different context. If TWC suddenly solved all its problems with NetFlix in my area, and if the public at large was aware of this, there would be a migration from Verizon to TWC. At that point, Verizon would suddenly improve its peeing with Netflix.

The only reason they did not, is because they are duopoly and so did not have to. That's pretty-much the bright-line test for whether there is abuse.

ISPs should be common carrier.

Re:As long as the US doesn't reign in on monopolie

[smooth wombat]

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.