Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal

An anonymous reader writes: Verizon now joins AT&T and Time Warner Cable in the list of ISPs on which Netflix streaming has significantly improved after Netflix paid for access to their networks. Ars Technica notes that "[t]he interconnection deals give Netflix a direct connection to the edge of the Internet providers' networks, bypassing congested links, but without receiving priority treatment after entering the networks." The success of these deals, however, gives the ISPs no incentive whatsoever to fix their congested links. Toll roads have, in essence, been created for the internet.

Comments

Boycott will end this in less than a week

[Anonymous Coward]

"Verizon now joins AT&T and Time Warner Cable in the list of ISPs on which Netflix streaming has significantly improved after Netflix paid for access to their networks."

Every company in that list needs a massive boycott. People need to be creating web sites showing a list of who's creating toll roads. (read: default slow lanes)

It doesn't seem bad now, but this will destroy the internet if we allow it.

Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that. People won't give up gasoline and they won't give up their shitty media. You can depend on that.

Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week

[mentil]

Sure, I'll cancel my broadband subscription with the local monopoly and go back to dialup. But who do they get their upstream bandwidth from? At&t, Verizon, Time Warner or Comcast. Doh!

Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week

[Rockoon]

The scandal here is not the peering, but rather the fact that instead of being mutual (each side foots its own half of the bill), the ISP's are using their customers as leverage to get paid for it.

No, the scandal here is that the asymmetric arrangement isnt presented honestly, like you didnt do right here.

Settlement free peering has never existed when one side sends significantly more traffic than the other side. Period. Its not something that happens. You can call it extortion if you want, never the less thats not how the business operates now or has ever operated in the past.

In this case the peering agreement need to be asymmetric (one side pays the other) because the bandwidth simply isnt even close to symmetric, but Level 3 (the ISP Netflix uses) does not want to pay the difference. Level 3 approached Netflix with a sweetheart deal, got their business, but now don't want to pay other backbones for the consequences of being Netflix's ISP.

Now given that Netflix itself is saving money because Level 3 isnt charging them a traditional price for the amount of bandwidth that they push, and Level 3 gets away with this by not paying other backbone providers a traditional price for such asymmetric peering, then it only seems natural that Neflix takes that money they are saving using their cheapskate ISP and uses some of it to route around the issues that choosing a cheapskate ISP has caused them.

Decisions have consequences.

Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week

[thaylin]

Actually settlement free peering has always existed for the last mile providors, who will ALWAYS by definition have a traffic imbalance.

Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week

[thaylin]

Except you are not confusing the last mile ISP part of verizon with the commercial ISP of verizon, and the mistake can be summed up in this quote of yours:

The receiver shouldn't be paying because they may have neither requested nor want it.

They DID request it and they DID want it, otherwise it would not have been transmitted through their network. It is not like netflix just randomly sends data to other peoples network.

Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week

[Shatrat]

Or maybe they get it from Level 3, Cogent, XO, Integra or some other wholesale carrier. Competition is actually pretty healthy once you get out of that residential last-mile. Also, if you switch from an ISP that relies on selling video services to one that is more focused on data and voice, you will find they are much less dickish about impairing your connection to content providers.

Need municipal network.

[khasim]

You cannot boycott them while they still control the last mile (the connection to your house).

In order to take that control from them, people have to be willing to vote to have their local government install/maintain/tax a local network as part of the infrastructure.

Then the local government can lease connectivity to whomever wants to offer Internet service. If Comcast is charging extra for a service you want then you can go with a different option.

Isn't this what Netflix OpenConnect is for?

[schweini]

Could someone explain why all of this is an issue, when Netflix seems to be giving away their OpenConnect CDN boxes for free, so that ISPs can cache most of the Netflix traffic inside their own network?

Possible solution

[Solandri]

As a Netflix subscriber whose ISP does not charge them for peered access, it is simply Wrong that part of my subscription fee is being used to pay Comcast, Verizon, etc. when I have no business relationship with them.

Netflix should revamp their billing structure. In addition to their monthly fee, there should be a separate line item for an ISP surcharge. If your ISP does not charge Netflix, then that surcharge is $0. If your ISP does charge them, then the surcharge is how much Netflix pays them divided by the number of Netflix customers on that ISP. Let the people using those ISPs eat the costs their ISPs are adding, and make it damn obvious that the ISP is the one responsible for the surcharge. Don't hide it in Netflix's regular bill and make the rest of us pay for it.

Re:Possible solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Then blame your ISP for overselling beyond their capacity to provide....

There was no "no Netflix" clause in my contract when I purchased the broadband connection...

Re:Possible solution

[RingDev]

Lets say I pay a sub shop for a sandwich. I then pay you to go get my sandwich. When you get to the sup shop, you tell them that if they want to have their sandwich delivered, they will also have to pay you.

At this point, if they decline to pay you, I'll never get my sandwich, which will impact my willingness to order sandwiches from them again.

And unfortunately, you personally are the only one who can get the sandwich for me. So I can't go out and find another sandwich getter.

That is the issue. Negotiating around an asymmetrical peering agreement isn't the end of the world. Allowing an entity with a monopoly dictate the negotiation of an asymmetrical peering agreement is a huge problem to the market.

-Rick

Oh goody !!

[dheltzel]

Now that Verizon is getting revenue from the upstream side because they have so many customers wanting to use Netflix, I'm just sure they will reduce the monthly fees they charge their customers, seeing as their customers are now their product. ( -- for anyone getting ready to "correct" me)