Netflix Refuses To Comply With Verizon’s “Cease And Desist”

[fattypants]

They paid Verizon as well, not just Comcast. Comcast is delivering the bandwidth (or at least most of it), Verizon isn't holding up to their end of the deal. Verizon is getting paid by BOTH their customers AND Netflix -- and not delivering. So...

This is what pisses me off the most.

Verizon: "Pay us money for the internets"
Customers: "Ok."

Verizon: "We've been paid for the internets. Ok now Netflix, you pay us too."
Netflix: "Why?"

Verizon: "Because we can, that's why. We don't need the money. Would be an awful shame if your service suffered some...degredation, wouldn't it?"

 

[Disposed]

This is what pisses me off the most.

Verizon: "Pay us money for the internets"
Customers: "Ok."

Verizon: "We've been paid for the internets. Ok now Netflix, you pay us too."
Netflix: "Why?"

Verizon: "Because we can, that's why. We don't need the money. Would be an awful shame if your service suffered some...degredation, wouldn't it?"

Thats just the beauty of the free market. Remember kids when theres corruption and scumbaggery its really just good business.

 

[SLee]

Ok, I'm gonna say it..... SLee sounds like he works for Verizon/Comcast/etc.

And maybe you work for Netflix or Cogent? I see that you attack the messenger instead of arguing against any points of mine.

Who in there right mind could side with any of these horribly anti consumer companies?

I agree, why would I side with a company that appears to be trying to offset its data delivery costs onto everyone, rather than just its actual clients, thus increasing costs on everyone, and prioritizing Internet infrastructure upgrades that only benefits itself.

When did it become ok to pay for something, not get what you paid for, then get told "Deal with it because we are the only game in town"?

On the other hand, it's just as likely that it's a case of not paying for something, demanding it and when you don't get it then yelling "Deal with it, because we are the biggest streaming service in town."

 

[Ducman69]

And maybe you work for Netflix or Cogent? I see that you attack the messenger instead of arguing against any points of mine.

Be nice to at least frame it with the pretext "Sup, I'm against net neutrality, and I work for a major ISP"... doesn't mean the argument is invalid, but its like saying "Sup, I'm against Obama, and I am the dragon master of the Greenville KKK chapter", which helps give a little perspective of where you're coming from.

 

[SLee]

This is what pisses me off the most.

Verizon: "Pay us money for the internets"
Customers: "Ok."

Verizon: "We've been paid for the internets. Ok now Netflix, you pay us too."
Netflix: "Why?"

Verizon: "Because we can, that's why. We don't need the money. Would be an awful shame if your service suffered some...degredation, wouldn't it?"

Or more accurately:

Verizon Landline: "Pay us money for the internets"
Customers: "Ok."

Verizon Enterprise: "Pay us what you pay Cogent."
Netflix: "Why?"
Verizon Enterprise: "We can do a better job than Cogent."

Of course even if you forcibly split Verizon Enterprise off and make it UUNET, the conversation would be identical.

UUNET: "Pay us what you pay Cogent."
Netflix: "Why?"
UUNET: "We can do a better job than Cogent."

In almost every scenario Netflix is paying someone to deliver its data. The only scenario where it doesn't occur is if Netflix is able to violate the net neutrality, and force other companies into free peering and thereby gaining an advantage none of its competitor can get.

 

[SLee]

Be nice to at least frame it with the pretext "Sup, I'm against net neutrality, and I work for a major ISP"... doesn't mean the argument is invalid, but its like saying "Sup, I'm against Obama, and I am the dragon master of the Greenville KKK chapter", which helps give a little perspective of where you're coming from.

I'm not against net neutrality, I'm just against its use in situations where it never applied to or where people use it to basically support whatever position they have.

Just like if I were American (which I'm not), I would be against Obama because he's a weak leader whose captured by Wall Street, was unable to push through a reasonable single-pay health care system or reforms to the financial system among other faults.

 

[mope54]

granted that it's probably confusing to a non-native, but our US president can't control those things. he can't just unilaterally pass bills. we have a Congress.

if you live in the UK it'd be like blaming the Queen when Parliament doesn't want to pass a certain bill.

 

[SLee]

granted that it's probably confusing to a non-native, but our US president can't control those things. he can't just unilaterally pass bills. we have a Congress.

As a Canadian, I understand the separation of powers and checks and balances of the US system, but the president is a powerful and influential position, Obama was popular, and issues like health care and financial are popular.

Yet he compromised easily, never appeared to really fight for them, to the point that Bush was more effective at getting his things, as dumb as they generally were. It doesn't help that he picks someone like Geithner as Treasury Secretary and thought of Summers for the Fed Reserve Chairman.

 

[Parmenides]

Thats just the beauty of the free market. Remember kids when theres corruption and scumbaggery its really just good business.

Haha, free market, haha. Welcome to the crony market kids, I am your daddy and there is no one else to turn to, boy!

 

[/usr/sbin]

Haha, free market, haha. Welcome to the crony market kids, I am your daddy and there is no one else to turn to, boy!

Was just going to say that. No real republican is in favor of crony capitalism, it's how you spot the hacks from the real republicans. The same goes for Democrats as well.

 

[McFry]

According to ISP's there is some sort of problem with the amount of data users are requesting due to their dependence upon Netflix. This is not Netflix's problem, this is the ISP and customer's problem. The solution is to charge customers more money to offset the cost of increased load. But ISP's dont want to charge us more money (namely because there isnt a problem in the first place and they can already deliver the content just fine) because they dont want to incur sticker shock and engage in competition with what few competitors they have. This would start a price war and eventually someone would cave and agree to offer us 100mbsp service for $50/month and that'd be the end of it.

So what Verizon/Comcast are trying to do is discretely pad their profit margin by charging somebody else for the content, such as the originators. If they can silently get Netflix to play ball and pick up the extra cost burden then they dont have to raise prices on their customers. Then Netflix will pass that cost along to us, Netflix will look bad and too expensive, and people will cancel and go back to watching programming that Verizon/Comcast delivers once again. If Netflix were to eat the cost increase themselves, then ISP's would begin to gouge them to the point it is unaffordable or they have to pass the cost along to us.

Anyway they got busted, there's no way they're going to proportionately increase costs on us, and they have plenty of bandwidth to spare in the first place. The only way this gets stopped is by law, since they are still allowed to do whatever they want with their free enterprise private business assisted by American tax dollars.

 

[Jagger100]

A few years back when everyone was predicting that we would soon get all our entertainment though Internet streaming services, I said that prices would rise. People then informed me that they already paid for plenty of bandwidth, so I was wrong. I tried to point out that they were paying for peak bandwidth, not sustained, but I was ignored. So why is anybody surprised?

"Nobody listens to Zathrus."

Because a video stream is 1/5 to 10th of advertised bandwidth. Even if there is an asterisk on it saying 'Peak' in microscopic print, If sustained is less than 10% of peak, the peak value is completely disconnected from any hint of their sustained capability is completely misleading advertising. People deserve a re-fund.

Nevermind people who shield their Netflix stream's identity don't seem to have problems.

 

[m heisty]

Let's get a few things straight. It has been mentioned in brief in this thread before. But there are two different internet markets. There is the residential market, the market you get at home, and the business market, the market of the interconnects. Residential customers pay for connection to the internet, business customers pay for connection to the backbone. The markets are very different, have different revenue models, have different ways of operating, and have different business practices.

 

[McFry]

Let's get a few things straight. It has been mentioned in brief in this thread before. But there are two different internet markets. There is the residential market, the market you get at home, and the business market, the market of the interconnects. Residential customers pay for connection to the internet, business customers pay for connection to the backbone. The markets are very different, have different revenue models, have different ways of operating, and have different business practices.

Thats fine and dandy, the problem people have is that the carriers are artificially limiting bandwidth to targeted sites in a maneuver purely to gain more money. This is also fine and dandy, however the concern is that this will be abused since there is an inherent conflict of interest between a content creator also being the content distributor.

FedEx is free to charge me extra for overnight delivery, a premium expedited form of service. They are also free to charge me extra for delivery from certain locales. A package shipped from Zimbabwe overnight should cost more than a package shipped from Texas. However, if they start charging me more money to deliver packages sent from the same location based purely upon who is sending it, then we have a problem. Lets say FedEx has an axe to grind with Amazon, so they charge double for anything sent from Amazon, regardless of if it actually puts a burden on their distribution network. They are basically penalyzing Amazon because they plain ole dont like them, i.e. discrimination, i.e. the birth of the "neutrality" argument.

You are free to charge varying amounts based on what and where and why you have to deliver content, but not based upon who you are delivering it for.

 

[d50man]

SLee, you can thank the rest of your red state Hers for no single payer healthcare in the U.S.

Verizon and Comcast both need to have something done for MORE transparency on what links are overloaded/ undersized to their networks.

 

[McFry]

Verizon and Comcast both need to have something done for MORE transparency on what links are overloaded/ undersized to their networks.

Thats the thing, they're not overloaded at all. I think there was an article on [H] not too long ago about supposed whistleblower info from Level 3, that Comcast was at best peaking around 50% of their available bandwidth. Comcast claimed that Netflix accounts for 30% of their internet traffic or some such thing, which sounds like a big deal. Until you realize that even if Netflix was 100% of their internet traffic, they'd still have plenty of bandwidth to spare. So they're basically just holding out. There is no choke, no bottleneck, no network burden. The entire thing is made up just so they can squeeze a few extra bucks out of whomever they can, and to stifle this industry so that people still feel that paying for broadcast television is the only effective & reliable method to truly watch TV.

 

[XvMMvX]

As a Canadian, I understand the separation of powers and checks and balances of the US system, but the president is a powerful and influential position, Obama was popular, and issues like health care and financial are popular.

Yet he compromised easily, never appeared to really fight for them, to the point that Bush was more effective at getting his things, as dumb as they generally were. It doesn't help that he picks someone like Geithner as Treasury Secretary and thought of Summers for the Fed Reserve Chairman.

Thank god you are not an American. You can keep your crappy single payer healthcare.

There is a reason your citizens who can pay cash come to the US for treatment.

I will work hard and pay for my own damn health care (which is tops in the world) thank you very much.

 

[ravx25]

Thats the thing, they're not overloaded at all. I think there was an article on [H] not too long ago about supposed whistleblower info from Level 3, that Comcast was at best peaking around 50% of their available bandwidth. Comcast claimed that Netflix accounts for 30% of their internet traffic or some such thing, which sounds like a big deal. Until you realize that even if Netflix was 100% of their internet traffic, they'd still have plenty of bandwidth to spare. So they're basically just holding out. There is no choke, no bottleneck, no network burden. The entire thing is made up just so they can squeeze a few extra bucks out of whomever they can, and to stifle this industry so that people still feel that paying for broadcast television is the only effective & reliable method to truly watch TV.

And that is what needs to be done as you mention here in detail...there needs to be transparency on both side of the picture as SLee mentioned. Is Comcast, Verizon and other creatively routing so as to cause bottlenecks as has been reported previously? Is their network really saturated with Netflix traffic? Can they prove it? On the flip side, some of the same questions can be asked of Cogent. Unfortunately, since this is their networks they can provide whatever stats they would prefer us to see. If this ever sees a courtroom there needs to be a subpoena by a 3rd party network monitor as to Netflix IP traffic on both sides. Both sides have interest wrapped up in the game to finagle the numbers in the meantime.

 

[Disposed]

Thank god you are not an American. You can keep your crappy single payer healthcare.

There is a reason your citizens who can pay cash come to the US for treatment.

I will work hard and pay for my own damn health care (which is tops in the world) thank you very much.

Tops in the world? Surely you can't be serious or did you just step out of a time machine?

 

[Draax]

Thank god you are not an American. You can keep your crappy single payer healthcare.

There is a reason your citizens who can pay cash come to the US for treatment.

I will work hard and pay for my own damn health care (which is tops in the world) thank you very much.

Tops in the world? Bahahaha

 

[Ruoh]

Tops in the world? Surely you can't be serious or did you just step out of a time machine?

He needs to clean his workroom.

 

[cdr_74_premium]

Universal healthcare work. Nobody knows where, but it does!

 

[XvMMvX]

http://www.healthcareglobal.com/top_ten/top-10-lifestyle/top-10-medical-schools-in-the-world-2013

We boast 8 of the top 10 medical schools in the world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthew...innovative-countries-in-biology-and-medicine/

This is from 2011 but we DWARTH the rest of the world in research.

So yes, our medical technology and level of care is the best. Just look at the people that come from ALL OVER THE WORLD to be treated at MD Anderson in Houston. We do the most to advance care in the world.

Or do you prefer month long waits for surgeries or radiation treatment for life threatening cancer?

Do other countries have better HEALTH? Yes, but that is because of cultural life style choices that American's continue to make.

I sure as shit don't hear of Americans leaving the country to go to these meccas of healthcare to get treated for cancer.

 

[XvMMvX]

Hah... I can't spell.

 

[Neslepax]

Having the most advanced medical knowledge and spending the most on medical research does not equate to how available or affordable basic healthcare is for the majority of a population.

 

[cdr_74_premium]

Like Cuba? LOL

 

[XvMMvX]

Having the most advanced medical knowledge and spending the most on medical research does not equate to how available or affordable basic healthcare is for the majority of a population.

Seriously?

To have the best it cost money. Also, everyone in the US can go to the ER and get a prescription for the sniffles. Nice Strawman.

Maybe the people that "can't afford it" should give up the tablets, smart phones, new air jordans, etc and purchase some healthcare. Shit, most of their "Tax Refunds" would pay for a whole year of insurance premiums.

 

[XvMMvX]

Having the most advanced medical knowledge and spending the most on medical research does not equate to how available or affordable basic healthcare is for the majority of a population.

One last thought on this. People have access to basic healthcare in this country. It is people like you who think that they SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY for their healthcare.

 

[cdr_74_premium]

Why? Just blame the rich and keep bitching until you get things for free.

It's sad to see how the mighty have fallen.

 

[CRaschNet]

Why? Just blame the rich and keep bitching until you get things for free.

It's sad to see how the mighty have fallen.

Really? The rich who has most political power and financial control of our economy. What a dumb obtuse assertion.
I guess we need to privatize the air you breath so you pay a premium to suck in smog.

 

[Neslepax]

Seriously?

To have the best it cost money. Also, everyone in the US can go to the ER and get a prescription for the sniffles. Nice Strawman.

Maybe the people that "can't afford it" should give up the tablets, smart phones, new air jordans, etc and purchase some healthcare. Shit, most of their "Tax Refunds" would pay for a whole year of insurance premiums.

This entire statement is so incredibly ignorant of the socioeconomic state of the country. You basically just lumped millions of people into a single group based on a massively flawed assumption that they are in their plight because they can't stop buying luxury items. You need to stop watching Fox News.

One last thought on this. People have access to basic healthcare in this country. It is people like you who think that they SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY for their healthcare.

When did I ever state anything about anyone not having to pay for healthcare? You are making another huge, and incorrect, assumption. I simply stated that medical research does not equate to medical availability. Do you know how much research goes on in a typical research university? Do you have any idea how much of that research ever makes it beyond the academic community? The academic world and the industrial world are not the same thing. If you spent any time in either, you would know this and wouldn't be making such foolish assertions (in fact, your total lack of ability to present your views in a clear, concise way makes it painfully obvious you do not have advanced degrees).

Stop being a part of the problem. Regurgitating what you hear on Fox News only makes you sound foolish.

 

[CRaschNet]

Why? Just blame the rich and keep bitching until you get things for free.

It's sad to see how the mighty have fallen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

 

[cdr_74_premium]

Really? The rich who has most political power and financial control of our economy. What a dumb obtuse assertion.
I guess we need to privatize the air you breath so you pay a premium to suck in smog.

I live in a country where the government have control of everything. It's one of the countries with the least economic freedom in the world. Yet, it's a mess.

The only thing the government does when in control of everything is reinforce the power of people that are rich not because of what they DO, but because of WHOM THEY KNOW. If you want to be rich here you have to know the right people that are able to set things up for you... for a price, of course. Then they turn around and blame the rich: not the ones that are friends, but the stubborn that, despite all the obstacles put in place by the government, manage to get rich because of their actions.

The rich is a scapegoat. Rest assured that government's friends will not be harmed at all.

 

[XvMMvX]

This entire statement is so incredibly ignorant of the socioeconomic state of the country. You basically just lumped millions of people into a single group based on a massively flawed assumption that they are in their plight because they can't stop buying luxury items. You need to stop watching Fox News.



When did I ever state anything about anyone not having to pay for healthcare? You are making another huge, and incorrect, assumption. I simply stated that medical research does not equate to medical availability. Do you know how much research goes on in a typical research university? Do you have any idea how much of that research ever makes it beyond the academic community? The academic world and the industrial world are not the same thing. If you spent any time in either, you would know this and wouldn't be making such foolish assertions (in fact, your total lack of ability to present your views in a clear, concise way makes it painfully obvious you do not have advanced degrees).

Stop being a part of the problem. Regurgitating what you hear on Fox News only makes you sound foolish.

Somebody has been watching too much MSNBC. That is your only argument, is that I can't understand these people's plight because I made choices and decisions not to put myself into that situation? That and oh... FOX NEWS RRRAAAAGGGEEE!!!!

You have bought everything the democrats have fed you, you have no personal responsibility and instead of trying to earn your way in the world you would rather blame someone else for your problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

Too Easy:

Tax Cuts for the rich?

1. Because it is so awful to let people keep what they earned and not steal it to redistribute wealth. 2. Because more money in the economy is a bad thing?

Two Trillion on two wars:

Everyone in congress voted for the wars.

Medicare Part D?

So more government in healthcare will fix the problem?

Moved goods on roads we paid for?

News flash, when a company trucks their goods (in this case) they pay DOT permitting fees for the load. So they are paying for their use of the roads.

Hired workers that we paid to educate?

How about that worker got the job because the person/company paid for the educate and they are making use of it.

Police, Fire, etc?

Companies don't pay Corporate, State, and local taxes? Property taxes?

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

Will you guys STFU about health care already? Nobody gives a shit. Take it to another thread, healthcare is wildly off topic. If you want to talk politics and health care, sign up for the Off-Topic forum we have here called General Mayhem. If you aren't willing to sign up, then kindly leave this thread and let the discussion continue on the original topic.


Back on topic....
This thread is about Netflix and their dealings with Verizon. Discuss.

 

[CRaschNet]

I live in a country where the government have control of everything. It's one of the countries with the least economic freedom in the world. Yet, it's a mess.

The only thing the government does when in control of everything is reinforce the power of people that are rich not because of what they DO, but because of WHOM THEY KNOW. If you want to be rich here you have to know the right people that are able to set things up for you... for a price, of course. Then they turn around and blame the rich: not the ones that are friends, but the stubborn that, despite all the obstacles put in place by the government, manage to get rich because of their actions.

The rich is a scapegoat. Rest assured that government's friends will not be harmed at all.

So freaking what. We are talking about US policy. Way different thing. The US is control by the Oligarchy. Which are the rich. Give the people a false sense of power in government. At least your government is honest. Ours give us the reach around and don't finish us off just to keep us hanging.

 

[Gorankar]

Why would they comply? It's not slander if it's true. It is true isn't it?

 

[CRaschNet]

Somebody has been watching too much MSNBC. That is your only argument, is that I can't understand these people's plight because I made choices and decisions not to put myself into that situation? That and oh... FOX NEWS RRRAAAAGGGEEE!!!!

You have bought everything the democrats have fed you, you have no personal responsibility and instead of trying to earn your way in the world you would rather blame someone else for your problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

Too Easy:

Tax Cuts for the rich?

1. Because it is so awful to let people keep what they earned and not steal it to redistribute wealth.

Not when they externalize everything. Study economics.
Second False dichotomy of equating taxes with stealing. That is just bullshit. .

2. Because more money in the economy is a bad thing?

The Federal Reserve is the government! I see you don't even know what momentary policy is.

Two Trillion on two wars:
Everyone in congress voted for the wars.

I didn't vote for that. That's the problem of being part of a republic.

Medicare Part D?
So more government in healthcare will fix the problem?

Why yes, that's why people like you fight healthcare reform, not for a better system but not to pay more taxes.

Moved goods on roads we paid for?
News flash, when a company trucks their goods (in this case) they pay DOT permitting
fees for the load. So they are paying for their use of the roads.

Which they write off for being a business. Sorry, you don't even know business tax code.

Hired workers that we paid to educate?

Where are they going to hire workers that are educated? And WE ALL PAID FOR EVERYONE'S education.

How about that worker got the job because the person/company paid for the educate and they are making use of it.

And the college or university they go to get's more money from the goverment than from

Companies don't pay Corporate, State, and local taxes? Property taxes?

[/quote]
Most companies don't pay the way lower percentage for their income as a regular person. They pay way less. The largest move their money off shore and pay no taxes.

Unlike you, I believe in a balance. The problem is money = power. There has been way too much abuse of power.

 

[CRaschNet]

Why would they comply? It's not slander if it's true. It is true isn't it?

Sorry, comply with what?
I care about the facts. Truth doesn't matter if the facts for that truth is bullshit.

 

[CRaschNet]

Verizon need to get is ass out of a sling and make a better peering agreement. This is not netflix fault. it Level 3's and Verizon's
Verizon doesn't want to pay for upgrading its network. They rather externalize their cost.