Netflix Trash-Talks Verizon's Network; Verizon Threatens To Sue

jfruh (300774) writes "If you're a Verizon broadband customer and you've tried streaming Netflix over the past few days, you might've seen a message telling you that the "Verizon network is crowded" and that your stream is being modified as a result. Verizon isn't taking this lying down, saying that there's no proof Verizon is responsible for Netflix's issues, and is threatening to sue over the warnings."

Comments

Price Wars

[imunfair]

Since Netflix already paid off Comcast I'd wager they're willing to do the same for Verizon. However, Verizon is probably trying to bleed them for more than they're willing to pay. In other words, this is just their way of negotiating the contract down to a "reasonable" amount. (as if they should even have to make payoffs to the cable companies in the first place)

Re:Price Wars

[Austerity Empowers]

This is why you don't negotiate with terrorists.

solutiuon to non net neutrality..

[greywire]

Well this seems like a fine "solution" to companies that are trying to get rid of net neutrality.

What if every big content provider started popping up such messages? Let the user know directly that their content is being delivered slower because their net provider is throttling the data.

As long as the content provider can accurately determine this is happening, then what can anybody do to stop them from saying it? Verizon can huff and puff about it but if its provably true can they legally do anything to stop it?

I bet people start caring about net neutrality real fast..

Re:Redbox Instant

[Chalnoth]

They don't actually need to throttle anything. They just have to fail to build the infrastructure required to support the bandwidth needs of their customers from a Netflix source. Basically, as video streaming has increased, it's created bottlenecks in existing internet infrastructure. If they don't keep up with the new bandwidth demands, they can't deliver the content.

Video streaming providers like YouTube and Netflix have been colocating cache servers at ISP's for a while now. These cache servers are actually cheaper for everybody: they're cheaper for the ISP because they don't need to build out as much new upstream bandwidth to keep their service going. They're cheaper for the content provider because the content provider doesn't get as many hits on its datacenters. And everybody else in between has a less-congested network.

So really it's a matter of ISP's like Verizon and Comcast refusing to allow Netflix/YouTube to build cache servers at the ISP's sites, despite the clear benefits to everybody.

Re:TOECDN solves mostly all of your problems

[ArhcAngel]

Netflix offers caching but Comcast/Verizon demand they pay for it despite the money they would save by hosting the cache. They're more interested in poaching Netflix's customers for their own streaming alternatives. This is what happens when Net Neutrality is not mandated.

Re:Redbox Instant

[JWW]

The irony here is that Version will claim no one is paying them to expand their capacity to deal with the Netflix traffic.

But then there customers should be able to ask and sue for an answer to the question: "If you don't have enough bandwidth to handle sending us data from Netflix, did you lie when you told us you were selling us X amount of bandwidth?"

Simple solution

[Charcharodon]

The solution is Netflix and everyone else needs to let you buffer based on your available bandwidth. If your connection is too slow to watch the HD movie you have paid for then it should pretty much download the whole thing and then let you watch it.

The whole concept of live streaming accross the internet has always been a stupid idea for pre-recorded non-live media consumption

Re:Redbox Instant

[TangoMargarine]

Um, isn't Netflix pretty specifically the only major provider that ISN'T owned/run by the Big X? Which is why the ISPs who are owned by the same/similar people are trying to shut them down so hard?