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."

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.

Netflix is no Saint Theresa

[GovCheese]

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.

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: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 [journalistsresource.org]

Link two for reference [geekwire.com]

Link three for reference [nytimes.com]

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.