Netflix to pay Verizon for faster streaming


Netflix (NFLX) strikes a deal with Verizon (VZ) to improve the speed and reliability of its streaming content to Verizon customers.

The arrangement creates a more direct connection between the servers of the companies.

Netflix already has a for-pay peering deal with Comcast.

From other sites
Comments (12)
  • coloneldebugger
    , contributor
    Comments (920) | Send Message
     
    Can we put a proper headline edit in place here? Or maybe a headline version of Madlibs

     

    Netflix to pay Verizon's...

     

    ransom
    "protection money"
    coercion fee
    initial dues into the Internet big boy club

     

    ...for faster streaming.
    29 Apr 2014, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • Brlanger
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    If another company wants to use the service Verizon put into place out of it's investment then they have every right to charge for it. As a Verizon shareholder I am looking for a piece of the profits as well.
    29 Apr 2014, 09:06 AM Reply Like
  • JD in NJ
    , contributor
    Comments (1634) | Send Message
     
    My take on it is a bit different, as I am a customer of both companies. I'm already paying both of them. I pay Verizon for a 50 megabit/second pipe into my home, and I pay Netflix to load data into that pipe from the other end. I find it a bit irritating that I'll probably have to indirectly pay Verizon even more via Netflix in order for the services to actually work well again.

     

    I feel I should point out that there is little reason to pay an Internet company for access if said access doesn't actually work. Perhaps they have implemented a broken business model. It seems disingenuous to offer internet speeds that don't apply to actual content, but are only theoretical in nature.
    29 Apr 2014, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • Aristotle2k
    , contributor
    Comments (277) | Send Message
     
    I own VZ also as a stock; and I have FIOS & Netflix; but now im going to be charged more by Netflix (so they can pay VZ) to get "better speed" to Netflix when I already pay for 75mbps down from VZ?

     

    If this is how its going to play out; then why am I paying FIOS for a given speed when I can't get that speed to other services "on the internet". This is the entire premise of net neutrality and why we as consumers are screwed.
    29 Apr 2014, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • kencaston
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    So What's new?
    29 Apr 2014, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • coloneldebugger
    , contributor
    Comments (920) | Send Message
     
    This is exactly my problem. No ISP should be allowed to advertise a download speed if they going to pick and choose which sites are allowed to use that speed. If it's Netflix and Youtube today, who will it be next? And while it's now about protecting cable teevee revenue, what's to stop the ISPs in the future to censor content based on their political and religious views?
    29 Apr 2014, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • Sakelaris
    , contributor
    Comments (2651) | Send Message
     
    I am a Verizon shareholder (as well as a Netflix shareholder)--yet I say that if a company thinks that it can charge what it likes for a line it put through our own individual private properties, then perhaps the company should sell the line and open a hot dog stand or something.

     

    The companies running lines to our properties for gas and electric service resisted the principle of regulation for many years, and so it looks like we will see a similar long battle over these internet connections.
    30 Apr 2014, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • th3decider
    , contributor
    Comments (481) | Send Message
     
    Im a little surprised the "sophisticated" SA audience buys into the short-term net neutrality argument and gets upset when this type of thing happens. With nearly every other service or good customers who use more pay more for it, this is obvious. Internet service is one of the last markets where someone can use 100 times more of a product per month than another customer yet pay the same flat monthly rate. This makes no sense and creates the whole debacle we are in today.

     

    This whole argument with net neutrality would disappear overnight if we simply switched to metered internet access like most of the rest of the world has and how the data plans on all our cell phones work. That way the end-user customers who use more pay more, and everyone else who isn't downloading terabytes a month of bittorrents can pay a more reasonable amount and companies like netflix dont need to make special deals, the increased infrastructure cost from bandwidth usage will get paid for by the high bandwidth end-users.

     

    Yet somehow in the US we got it into our heads though that unlimited flat rate broadband is a constitutional right that can not be infringed upon...
    29 Apr 2014, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • JD in NJ
    , contributor
    Comments (1634) | Send Message
     
    If they want to implement plans based on both speed and volume, they are free to do so. We the customers can decide whether or not any such plan is a good value proposition. So far I have not been given the chance to do so. All the US providers offer a dollars-for-bandwidth tradeoff, so that's what we go with.

     

    It's when my bandwidth, which by rights should support multiple simultaneous streams, turns out to be meaningless due to upstream issues that I have a real complaint.

     

    Of course, using the 'terabytes of bittorrents' argument doesn't really apply to watching streams on Netflix, so that's a red herring argument isn't it?
    29 Apr 2014, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • coloneldebugger
    , contributor
    Comments (920) | Send Message
     
    Why would net neutrality disappear with metered plans? The metered plans only increase ISP revenue from the consumer side. The anti-net neutrality angle increases revenue from the content provider side.

     

    How much more does it cost an ISP to service the multi-terabyte bittorrenter over the grandma who likes emails and occasional cat videos? I really don't know this answer. Yes the difference can be measured, but how much actual cost to the ISP can be associated with that measurement?
    30 Apr 2014, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • Aristotle2k
    , contributor
    Comments (277) | Send Message
     
    Then don't offer unlimited plans then; your a typical consumer who wants to blame the actual customer. I don't care what anyone else is downloading; but if im paying for "unlimited" 75mbps down I want to get 75mbps down if whatever content I'm watching can deliver it at that speed.

     

    You; just like big media love to use scapegoats like "bittorrenting" to justify any anti-consumer policy.

     

    Hell I use a VPN anyway because of my job so they don't even know what im downloading and it shouldn't matter; it's why I pay for 75mbps down so I can get that speed. ISP's are just upset that they are just a "dumb pipe" and obviously want a piece of whatever data your downloading or uploading.
    30 Apr 2014, 01:15 PM Reply Like
  • JD in NJ
    , contributor
    Comments (1634) | Send Message
     
    Don't forget that there is a conflict of interest between Verizon, which provides television and on-demand channels over FiOS lines and Netflix which offers a competitive service.
    30 Apr 2014, 03:48 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs