H.264 streaming fees jump from $100,000 to $4.5 million a year under new licensing terms

zohaibahd

Posts: 979   +19
Staff
In context: The H.264 video compression standard, also known as AVC, has been around since 2003. Even though it's been superseded by newer codecs like H.265 and AV1, it remains the most popular option because of its widespread compatibility – platforms continue to fall back on H.264 to make sure content actually plays for everyone. But now, streaming royalties associated with the standard could become an issue.

H.264 has so far carried a flat annual cap of $100,000 for large subscription platforms. That may sound like a lot, but for these companies, the numbers are so small that most of them probably forgot it even existed on their balance sheet. Well, that comfortable arrangement just got a lot less comfortable.

H.264 licensing has so far been managed by Via Licensing Alliance, a patent pool administrator. As of the start of 2026, the body swapped out that flat cap and replaced it with a tiered fee structure. At the top of the tiers lies a whopping $4.5 million-per-year fee, which is a 45x jump from where things were.

The tiers are broken down by platform type and size. The $4.5 million figure applies to OTT services with 100 million or more subscribers. It also applies to FAST platforms pulling in 100 million-plus daily users, social media services with over a billion monthly active users, and cloud gaming platforms crossing 15 million monthly active users.

Next up are the Tier 2 and Tier 3 fees, which come in at $3.375 million and $2.25 million, respectively. Only the smallest platforms – those Via classifies as "small or nascent" – get to keep the old $100,000 rate.

Codec performance

Performance
vs to H.264
Encoding Complexity (Speed) Encoding Quality
H.264 Baseline Baseline
VP9 2-15x ~35%
HEVC 2-15x ~35%
AV1 15-30x ~50%

Suitability for different functions

Codec Suitability Live Origination Live Transcode Low Latency 4K HDR
H.264 Excellent Excellent Excellent Poor Poor
VP9 Poor Poor WebRTC Excellent Poor
HEVC Good Good Nascent Excellent Excellent
AV1 Good Good WebRTC Excellent Getting there

That said, there are exceptions to who this new tiered list applies to. Companies that already held an active AVC license by the end of 2025 get to keep their original terms. The new pricing only targets previously unlicensed implementers looking to sign on in 2026 or later.

As reported by Streaming Media, Via reportedly reached out to unlicensed media companies throughout 2025 to give them a heads-up and a chance to lock in the old rates, but the firm never issued a public announcement. Anyone who missed the outreach is now staring down the new structure.

The broader codec licensing environment has been getting increasingly aggressive over the past couple of years. Nokia has already gone after streaming services over HEVC patents. Two other licensing pools, Access Advance and Avanci, have also entered the picture with their own rate cards.

Those cover a whole range of codecs, from AVC and HEVC to VP9, VVC, and AV1. Taken together, major streaming platforms could be looking at, and major streaming platforms could be looking at nine-figure annual licensing bills.

Permalink to story:

 
That’s ok, I’d prefer AV1 to continue to gain popularity. What better way to put off the customers you want to pay you the most, when a very viable and more efficient open alternative exists!
While I'd agree with wanting that, this will probably nudge future endeavors towards AV1 but current H264 massive platforms will probably just pay the 'drop in the bucket' more on patents for simplicity.
 
So if I want to host a stream on my own server (eg peertube) and only 30 people watch, I have to pay $100,000 to use h264. Do I have that right?

Or do I pay $0 because the license is for the patent and software is unpatentable where I live?
 
Last edited:
Wait, hold up.

Does this mean every public mastodon and peertube instance owner in a country where software is patentable owes $100,000?
 
" a whopping $4.5 million-per-year fee, which is a 45x jump"

They are doing it wrong. Whoever owns it could take a good lesson from streaming platforms that use it.
Small increments. Annoying but growing slowly enough for buyers not to feel like they are paying too much.
Allow them to get used to the high price by upping it slowly.
 
" a whopping $4.5 million-per-year fee, which is a 45x jump"

They are doing it wrong. Whoever owns it could take a good lesson from streaming platforms that use it.
Small increments. Annoying but growing slowly enough for buyers not to feel like they are paying too much.
Allow them to get used to the high price by upping it slowly.
Yup, I remember when streaming platforms were $35 - $40--what, @ 10 years ago?
 
So Netflix, Amazon, etc. have a new excuse to raise rates...they are just writing the check, they aren't actually paying it though.
Pro tip: in a free-market economy, businesses don't need "excuses" to raise prices. Any rational business always attempts to set a price which maximizes total profits ... which is never the highest possible price they can get.

They used to teach this stuff in public schools, but it seems at some point they stopped entirely.
 
Pro tip: in a free-market economy, businesses don't need "excuses" to raise prices. Any rational business always attempts to set a price which maximizes total profits ... which is never the highest possible price they can get.

They used to teach this stuff in public schools, but it seems at some point they stopped entirely.

While that is true, read their press releases when they raise prices...they always give an 'excuse' for raising the price as opposed to giving the public school reality. :)
 
" a whopping $4.5 million-per-year fee, which is a 45x jump"

They are doing it wrong. Whoever owns it could take a good lesson from streaming platforms that use it.
Small increments. Annoying but growing slowly enough for buyers not to feel like they are paying too much.
Allow them to get used to the high price by upping it slowly.
They never heard of cooking frogs apparently, but neither has Broadcom or any of the others that know they are in a position of power with their IP and can basically charge whatever they like.
 
How would they feel if they had to pay a license fee to use other basic things like HTTP, SSL, USB, HDMI... those things should have patents to use defensively in cases like this to stop the madness.
 
So Netflix, Amazon, etc. have a new excuse to raise rates...they are just writing the check, they aren't actually paying it though.

This increase only applies to organizations that don't already have a license. Netflix, Amazon, and YouTube are all in the clear.

Also, those sites only stream H.264 when they have to because the client isn't compatible with newer codecs; they will use a more efficient codec whenever they can to save bandwidth. If they're ever forced to pay the higher rates, they will probably drop H.264 streaming rather than pay and drop support for the few remaining devices that require it.
 
The hardware manufacturers need to get ahead of the curve now.
TV's, receivers, any graphics decoding chip etc need to be ready for AV2 pronto at the least!
Heck, if Samsung or Hisense or one of those big name brands thought for a moment they could grab huge market share by promoting that alone!
 
Sooo just switch to AV1 already?

Someone could just invent a free compression method. There was a show called Sillicon Valley where a guy invented one and it was insanely efficient at compression, and if they make it free to everyone, that will drive the price down bigtime
 
Back