BuzzFeed wants to build a… social network?
34:52 Share

Now.

Now, what a special discount for our listeners. Today, you can get 20% off your Delete Me plan by texting Peter, that's my name, to 64000. Just text Peter to 64000. That's Peter to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details.

From the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is Channels with Peter Kafka. That's me. I am also the Chief Correspondent at Business Insider. Thank you to all of you who had nice things to say about the Michael Lewis episode last week. I liked it too.

This week, we've got a chat with someone I've talked with multiple times over the years. That is Jonah Peretti, the CEO and founder of BuzzFeed. BuzzFeed, as you know, was one of the most buzzy publishers, the 2010s, that weird go-go era for digital media. Now seems very long ago. But at the time, lots of reasonable people thought BuzzFeed represented the future of media. And like lots of other sites that hitched their future to Facebook, it has been in decline for some time. Now, Peretti is trying to bring it back, which involves...

making social media you feel good about and then hosting it on his own social media platform? You are most likely, probably, maybe rolling your eyes as you listen to this. I have some questions myself, but Peretti is always fun to chat with, so let's do it. Here's me and Jenna Peretti.

Jonah Peretti, you are the CEO and founder of BuzzFeed. You're back on my podcast again. Thanks for coming on. Thanks for having me. We're old, Jonah. We've been doing this for a long time. I was just looking at an interview I did with you in 2015, that is 10 years ago at South by Southwest.

where you were confidently explaining BuzzFeed's plan to distribute your content all over the internet, all the different social platforms, particularly the ones owned by Facebook. Things are different now. You've got a new manifesto, a new vision of the world. It's called the Anti-Snarf Manifesto. So I'm going to set this up for you. What is snarf and why should we be against it?

Yeah, so I think we're old and wise, and we've seen a lot of things happen on the internet. And one of the big things you get with the benefit of time is you see how these systems evolve over time. And in the early days, these social platforms were very open to content. And a lot of the content that spread was very positive and connected people. The mission of these companies was to connect people.

And you saw the things that would go most viral in those early days tended to be pretty positive content where people were learning about other people's identities and lives, but in a positive way of trying to connect with people. That's not really the world we live in now. And we're in a later stage of these platforms where they're very focused on profits and they're very focused on maximizing retention and the amount of time each user is spending. And they are using...

AI that is just much more powerful than anything they had 10 years ago, the sort of machine learning they had 10 years ago compared to these deep learning systems powered by GPUs on massive data centers that are able to recommend content to people in a way that just wasn't possible before. And that recommendation engine has gotten so good, the AI has gotten so good that people are spending hours on these platforms and

and actually feeling quite bad about the time they spent on the platforms. And the kind of content that gets recommended by these super powerful deep learning AI algorithms takes away a lot of the user's agency and almost compels them to watch the content. And so SNARF is an acronym. The S stands for stakes. Content on these platforms need to have really high stakes. Everything is super existential.

The N stands for novelty. Everything has to seem like it's brand new, never seen before, unprecedented.

The A is anger, one of the easiest emotions to manipulate. Content that makes people angry creates a really predictable response. And then retention is the R. And retention, and particularly hacks, to get people to watch the content until the end. So a lot of content on the internet doesn't give you the information you really want until you get to the very end. So it forces you to keep watching.

And then the F is fear, content that provokes fear, similar to anger. It's the kind of emotion that's the most easy to manipulate and the most easily to create a certain type of behavior. And so snarf overall is the kind of content that goes viral on platforms that use

deep learning AI to recommend content to people where you're telling the AI maximize retention and maximize monetization and the time that people are spending on these platforms. And the AI just figures it out. And when it figures it out, it promotes snarf content to people. And you think this is bad as instead of being sort of the logical endpoint and the direction these things were always headed. And you think that people don't want to consume this content, even though they are consuming this content.

Yes. And in the memo, I linked to a recent study where a large percentage of TikTok and Instagram users said they would pay money to make the platforms disappear. They wish they didn't exist. I think the most predictable kind of consumer behavior is addictive behavior.

This is kind of an aside, but it's a reason why large parts of the economy are based on addictive products, whether you're talking about pharmaceutical companies or alcohol or gambling. There's a whole range. I just had a long conversation with Michael Lewis about marrying gambling to smartphones and why that might be a problem.

Yeah, it's a larger trend that you see across many different industries where creating addictive patterns is good for at least short-term business gains. It kind of starts to break classical economics where you assume that if a consumer is picking a product, it means that it's giving them positive utility.

I linked to a study in the memo I wrote that really describes how people are getting negative utility from platforms and would even be willing to pay money if they could make them disappear. But the fact that they exist, they can't help but use them. That might be because of FOMO. It might be because they need to connect with other people and they feel like they can't step away from them. It might be because the AI is giving them snarf content that is very addictive, but

Snarf is the most addictive kind of content and you kind of want to see more of it. And you're like, oh, like my children might be at risk and the world might end. And there's this fear and there's that thing to be angry about and outraged about. And the stakes are so high and everything is unprecedented. And you have to just keep consuming this and consuming it. But you feel like shit afterwards. And you wish you weren't consuming it that much. And almost anyone you talk to says they wish they were spending less time on these platforms.

And so the idea that we need to start looking not just at classical economics, but we need to look at addiction psychology and behavioral economics and start to understand what are people actually doing on these platforms. And when they, quote, improve the platforms, is that improving utility or is that increasing the addictiveness and giving people even more frustration with their time they're spending on these platforms? We'll be right back with Jenna Peretti. But first, a word from a sponsor.

Support for this show comes from Delete Me. Wherever you go on the web, you'll leave traces. It's how the internet works. And some people have figured out that your personal data is worth a lot. That's why they compile it and sell it. They're called data brokers. And you might be surprised just how much of your personal data is online. Maybe even that's why you're getting certain spam calls.

You can protect your information from being sold online with a service called Delete Me. When you sign up for Delete Me, you let them know exactly what information you want deleted and their experts take it from there. It's not a one-time service. They keep on top of that information, monitoring where it ends up, keeping you updated on what they removed. Delete Me does all of the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites.

You can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete.me. Now at a special discount for our listeners, you can get 20% off your Delete.me plan by texting Peter, that's my name, to 64000. Just text Peter to 64000. That's Peter to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. And we're back.

So, Jonah, it sounds in some ways like you're just describing the way human beings have always responded to media, if you use media sort of broadly, right? They've gone to public executions or lynchings. There's a reason there's a cliche called if it bleeds, it leads, right? When we were describing, you know, how local news works.

It was a movie Network, where it was supposed to be sort of a dystopian parody about people getting people to watch the news by doing live executions on air. And that was in the 70s. And it kind of seems quaint now. Isn't this just sort of where we've always been going? And each version of technology that makes it easier, cheaper to distribute media just sort of accelerates that. And this has just always been sort of a logical endpoint. And again, this is what people want to consume.

I mean, I think that if you look at the fears people have about AI, it's a fear that AI is going to undermine human agency and that the AI will be so smart that it will either do our jobs for us and replace us or it will manipulate us and control us. And that's the fear about the future. But I think what you're seeing is that has already happened. When TikTok was launched in

It was so much better than all the other social media platforms at sucking time and attention. And every other company tried to mimic and copy

TikTok, and you saw that Meta had to build whole new data centers and whole new, instead of CPU-based data centers, they had to move to GPU-based data centers that could do this deep learning type of algorithm that TikTok was using that just did much better content recommendation. The issue is that the people who made TikTok don't care about content. They're technology people. Mark Zuckerberg doesn't really care much about content.

And so what you have is an AI that's being told, maximize time and retention. And the AI is just figuring out how to do it. And I agree with what you just said, that it figures out how to tap into parts of the human brain that can't resist staring at a public execution or a car crash or some sort

some terrible thing, but it pulls those things forward because there's no one who really cares at these companies that really cares about content. They're all just in a, in a giant technology race and an AI race. And so we end up with an AI that does the things that people are fearing that AI will do, which is take away our agency, right?

And essentially find the parts of our brain that will respond to media that cause us to spend huge amounts of time on our worst parts of ourselves. It just seems like this is, I mean, we could have been having this conversation in 1995, except we would have sort of pre-internet. And so instead of the internet and AI, we'd be talking about...

you know, a generation of slack-jawed people staring at the television and just flicking from channel to channel. And, you know, again, we've had these fears for a long time and companies were taking advantage of them. It just seems like your real complaint here, well, it seems like you have two complaints, one of which is they're doing a better job of it with robots instead of humans responding to Nielsen ratings, but it's the same idea. And two, it just seems like

The more trenchant critique that I'm sure a lot of folks have is, "Jenna Purdy, you benefited from all this for years. You built BuzzFeed into a really big and valuable company. Now BuzzFeed is having a harder time, and now it's not working for you as well, and that's really your complaint. It's not that AI is bad. It's that AI is using content that other people make instead of the stuff that you made." So maybe that's the place to start. I mean, what's wrong about that argument?

I mean, I think that we were in an era of kind of beer and wine era of the Internet where you have a beer with your friends. You laugh. It brings people together. It's kind of fun. And now we're in the crack and fentanyl era of the Internet where people are are consuming video online.

for hours with short little clips of just disturbing things and essentially content that is fake and made up. So part of the problem with snarf, it's not that stakes, novelty, anger, retention, and fear are necessarily bad things to put in content. But if you make up the stakes, like the video is totally fake or the novelty is fake. You see videos of people going and

snipping someone's headphones in public. And so there's like this novelty of like, how could someone do that? And it's all just made up bullshit, you know, content that isn't real being presented as if it's some real thing to kind of fake the stakes or fake the novelty or being designed intentionally to provoke anger. And so I agree that that early period of the internet, we were, we were experimenting a lot with all these mechanisms for attention, but what we, what we really, uh,

were making was this kind of beer and wine era of content that connected people together. And when we started to see this shift towards this darker internet, you know, we were fighting against it. We were writing, you know, I was

talking to Mark Zuckerberg or the head of News Feed or Chris Cox or others and saying, "Hey, we're noticing the shift where now content that creates conflict is what is going viral on Facebook. It used to be content that would bring people together, which I thought was your mission, but we had a post that was like, 'Olives are terrible,' and then all the comments were like, 'I love olives. I hate olives,' and it was a huge fight, right?

And that went huge, but some more positive, inspiring, interesting content that we created wasn't getting any distribution. And so we're like, this is a problem. We want to make content that touches the good parts of people's nature and connects people together.

But this negative content works. And then what happened was, you know, part of the reason we've had a tough time is a lot of the content that did well was content we just wouldn't make. We could have shifted to be a media company that makes content that is just made up bullshit or intentionally creating trolling to create anger and fear. But that just doesn't fit our culture, our brand, and our ethics.

And so I think that there's a matter of degree. And what we've seen happen is people figured out that if the goal is to get into the feed,

then whoever's willing to push it the furthest is going to be who gets into the feed. And it turns out pushing it the furthest means tapping into fear and anger, using very manipulative retention tactics, and then faking the stakes and faking the novelty in many cases. And that's the internet we all have to live with now. And

And so I think nobody benefits from that. Yeah, I mean, it seems like the genie's not just left the bottle, like the genie left the factory, whatever the metaphor is. Like this is a long, long, long time in the making and it doesn't seem like it's

You can pin it on AI. I mean, if you ever listen to talk radio, right, it's not about people sharing positive stuff. It's about people having arguments. That's the most popular form of programming for television is people having arguments, or at least what we call news. I guess there's no point in sort of belaboring that. I guess the question is, what do you want to do about it? And at the end of this memo that you published on Tuesday, you say, we, BuzzFeed, are going to make a new social media platform, and you should come join us there.

which is going to confuse some people and it has confused me. So how is BuzzFeed going to create a new social media platform and to what end? Well, so I think there's two ways to fight snarf. So if you're going to fight snarf, you need to do it by showing that you can make content for the big platforms that is positive,

Or that is snarf for good, you know, pointing out things where there's legitimately big stakes, there's legitimate novelty. And so I think with HuffPost and BuzzFeed and Tasty, there's a lot we can do to kind of fight back against the snarf on the internet. And I think people are starting to get sick of it.

And so we're seeing that more people are spending time coming directly to our properties. They want to engage with content where they know there's some trusted brand there and that they're not just getting a creator who's trying to change the content to make it as snarfy as possible in order to win their way into the feed. The first step of fighting this is to really

stay true to our values and make content that can compete in the world of snarf, but that doesn't succumb to some of these negative impulses that a lot of creators, and I don't even blame creators. I think they're just, in some cases, they just don't want to become invisible by

by making content that doesn't get any distribution. And so they're making content that, that will, what's an example of something that competes in the world of snarf, but isn't snarf. What's something that is compelling to people, but doesn't, isn't clicking these triggers that you're describing.

I mean, I think a lot of the political coverage on HuffPost would be an example of that. There's journalistic standards. They don't make up stuff. They don't exaggerate the stakes. They pick stories where there really are big stakes.

and write about those things with journalistic standards. I'm reading the main headline on the front page of HuffPost this morning. Slash and Burns, all caps, Trump's unprecedented attack on independent agencies. Now, it is unprecedented, right? Sometimes unprecedented is new.

But do you think, and there's a certain number of people who will want to click on that because it looks outrageous and it is in fact true. But other people would say, no, I don't want to, that's the kind of negative stuff I don't want in my news feed. It's a good example because it is unprecedented. So that's the novelty, right? The image is just a fire, by the way. Yeah, and you can look at a lot of things on the internet where they say it's unprecedented and it is not in fact unprecedented. But HuffPost has said,

is fortunate or unfortunate, I guess, depending on how you look at it, to have an amazing story to cover in the current Trump administration, where there are a lot of things that are quite unprecedented. And so that's novelty. And I think there is also legitimate anger and fear from the undermining of core institutions and the disregard of

of the two other branches of government. That might be snarf, but it's being covered with integrity and journalistic standards. If you want that kind of content, you want content that's very engaging and very exciting, you have to do it in a way where there's journalistic integrity and when you say something's unprecedented, it actually is.

And so that's one way of competing in this media ecosystem. The other way is counter-programming and making content that is joyful, that has utility, where people who don't want to be in this world of snarf can go to Tasty and figure out how to cook something.

one-pot meal for their family or have a little bit of joy and laughter. BuzzFeed has really been leaning into humor where people just want to laugh at the ridiculousness of the world. So I think if you're very good and you really focus, you can have success with content that doesn't fit the snarf mold.

And so what is the premise of creating your own social media platform? And is it really your own social media platform? You certainly know how this world works. You certainly know that, like, for instance, TikTok established itself by buying a billion dollars a year's worth of ads from Facebook in addition to whatever other funding and resources they had. You guys don't have a billion dollars a year to buy ads on Facebook. Do you really want to make a standalone social media platform or is this something else? So I think when...

technologies are new, there are a lot of opportunities to build things that are groundbreaking with very little resources that can scale and grow and become big. So if you think about Facebook being created in a dorm room,

You know, Mark Zuckerberg didn't have billions of dollars of, you know, to invest. The reason TikTok had to spend billions of dollars is they came very late to the party and built a social media network that was similar to YouTube or similar to Facebook in many ways.

and they needed to spend that money to catch up. I think that with generative AI, there is an opportunity to provide something that people really want, which is AI that enhances human agency instead of AI that takes away your agency. So TikTok and Instagram use AI to take away your agency. They literally, they tell the AI, get this person to spend as much time as possible on this platform and get this person to buy as much stuff as possible.

And so if you as the consumer are having your agency undermined in two ways, it's like they're trying to suck your time away and they're trying to suck your money away. And as I mentioned before, with the rise of SNARF and the improved deep learning algorithms, they're able to do that in a way that is using the addictive nature of human behavior as opposed to providing real utility. And so that creates an amazing opportunity for disruption.

And I think flipping it and using generative AI to make a social platform where people can use AI to create and play with each other is something that is, um, is a totally new approach that people want that will, um,

give the BuzzFeed audience an opportunity to go to an oasis on the internet where they can have their agency enhanced using cool new tools and technology as opposed to having it stripped away from them. So in simplest terms, this would be a BuzzFeed branded social network. I think you're calling it Island, right? That's the...

the URL for right now. That's a working title, yeah. That you'll own and operate and it will work. Help me fill in the blanks here. It's going to work like a standard social media platform where users upload stuff and an algorithm distributes it to other people who want to consume it? It will be a lot of co-creation, a lot of using AI tools to make things and play with other people and create with other people. It will...

lean into community, it will be more joyful, more playful, and less about the competition to win a slot in a feed where an algorithm is creating a sort of Darwinian environment to try to make the most addictive content be what everyone sees.

And when do you think this will be up and running? I think we'll start to open it up to early testers and some folks within the company and then expand from there. And we'll do it when we think it's really fun. Will I be able to get on it this summer and start uploading cute dog pictures? You might. I don't know if we want your dog pictures or not, though. No? What about my kids? They're kind of cute.

I think there's other platforms for your kids, maybe.

So, so I guess, I mean, you're trying to describe a thing that doesn't exist yet. So it's a little tough, but I am trying to get a sense of this and try to get a sense of why someone would seek it out. I mean, this is really, if you're already a BuzzFeed consumer, here's another way for you to spend time that, that makes sense. Or is it, you are not hanging out on BuzzFeed, but you are upset with TikTok or Facebook or whatever it is. We've created a new platform for you. Come join us.

Yeah, I mean, we've had a lot of success developing new formats using a

using AI technologies. The emoji generator where we built that before Apple had their emoji generator where people could come up with funny ideas for their own emojis and create them. We created chatbot games. We have people who are answering questions about things that are happening in culture and talking with each other about them.

We have a lot of interesting work in BuzzFeed quizzes where people are able to take quizzes and get more sophisticated answers and share them with friends and connect over that. So there's a lot of things that I think are possible to do now. If you were building a social network from scratch today, you would not build it the same way. It wouldn't be like the way Reddit or Pinterest or Facebook were built 20 years ago.

And so I think there's an opportunity if you've built an AI-native social media platform where from the start, all the users of the platform were empowered with different tools and different ways of connecting, you would build something very different. And so I think that's a big opportunity. And it's something that we can do that is harder for the big platforms to copy because their model is so dependent right now on...

people spending hours and hours consuming snarf content and, and, you know, shopping and buying products and, and, and doom scrolling. And if they switch to the kind of model we're talking that, that we're contemplating, you know, they, there's a lot of risk to their revenue. So I think we have a nice lane and ability to build something and build an ability to operate like a startup again with our stock price being low and our, our, you know, not, not having like this need,

need to defend a legacy business, we can build something pretty unique that could provide a lot of upside for us and the ability to...

to expand our business dramatically because we're starting from a place where building something a tenth the size of Pinterest or Reddit or one of the smaller social platforms would be hugely value-creating for us. So it creates nice incentives for our team as well. We'll be right back with Jenna Peretti, but first, a word from a sponsor.

Support for this show comes from Delete Me. Did you ever wonder how much of your personal data is out there on the internet for anyone to see?

There's a lot of it. There's your name, your contact info, social security, your home address, even information about your family. And all of that info is compiled by data brokers and sold online. In the wrong hands, it can lead to a real headache or worse. But Delete.me can help you protect yourself by removing that data from the internet. It's not just a one-time service. Delete.me stays monitoring and removing the info you don't want out there. You get regular personalized privacy reports showing where they found it and what they removed.

In a time when privacy matters more than ever, it's important to keep track of your data. Delete.me does all the hard work of wiping you and your family personal information from data-brokered websites.

Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. You can get 20% off your Delete Me plan by texting PETER to 64000. Just text PETER to 64000. That's PETER, that's my name, to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details.

And we're back. I can remember someone saying that BuzzFeed should become a platform and sort of creator-driven and allow a lot of people to make content and distribute it. And that person was Vivek Ramaswamy. That was his last year when he bought up a chunk of BuzzFeed and was arguing that he should have control of it or at least should have people on the board. I'm assuming this is not an idea you lifted from Vivek Ramaswamy.

We're not building what he described in that memo. But I think he wrote that memo when he had less understanding of the business. And so I think he understands more what we do now and...

understands the space a bit better having spent a little bit of time studying this and also talking to management. Where do things sit with you guys? He'd put out an ultimatum for you guys to put people on the board. That didn't happen. I was looking at the filings today. The last filing still showed him owning 8%, 9% of BuzzFeed. Are you guys in contact? Are you in discussions? Has he stopped talking to you? I probably shouldn't comment about the specifics, but I have had conversations with him.

Okay. One last business-y question. Since the last time we talked, you guys sold First We Feast, which is the company that owns Hot Ones, the great interview show. That seemed to be a growing business. I know you guys needed to sell stuff so you could pay down debt, in part to deal with people like the Ramaswamy. Why sell that asset if it's a growing, successful video business, which is what everyone says they want? Yeah, I mean, I think if you look at BuzzFeed's history, we've always been the best when we're at the intersection of tech

and content. And in the early days, that was understanding that social media was going to be a big thing before others and building a social content company and using that to grow to hundreds of millions of revenue and reach hundreds of millions of people. And we really are our best in environments where understanding technology and understanding content and the relationship between them is really key.

And we love our more tech-enabled businesses, our programmatic-powered businesses where we control the ad experience and can optimize it to grow revenue. The affiliate business where we can make differentiated content and be very data-centric in how we make our content and drive hundreds of millions in GMV for our retail partners.

So we've had a lot of success in those types of areas. First We Feast was a successful business that was a more traditional business. It was basically a talk show on YouTube. And it didn't fit with the sort of strategy of being a tech-enabled media company. You can't techify a Chicken Wings interview show. Yes. It's like fairly traditional business. And when you look at what we want to build and what we're building...

For core BuzzFeed, we're focused much more on our owned and operated, on our affiliate and programmatic revenue. We're seeing our higher margin, more tech-enabled businesses be the strongest parts of our business. Then building a new AI-native social media platform is a further advancement of that strategy. Selling first we feast and raising capital by selling it and paying down debt.

gives us the opportunity to invest in future oriented things. I mean, one of my frustrations as an entrepreneur is, you know, we went public via SPAC when the SPAC market had cooled off. It meant there wasn't as much capital there. And so we took on debt and we had to operate the complex and first we feast businesses, which turned out to be very different and less tech enabled and lower margin types of businesses.

And unwinding that and getting to a stronger balance sheet and being able to start innovating again took us some time. And we've gotten to that point now, but it was a lot of distraction and a lot of challenges culturally. And to be in a position where we can start to innovate again and we can get back to our roots of being a fast-moving entrepreneurial company that looks at the intersection of tech and media and says, where are things going? Let's build the thing that should exist.

And the thing that should exist is both an AI native social platform that gives people actual utility and joy and truth and playfulness and fun and humor, as opposed to what the internet has kind of become in the last few years. Like that's something we can get excited about and build towards. And I'm always excited about what can we build a year or two years out? And I think...

Hot Ones was a great business today, but I wanted to build something new and different for the future. So back to the social media platform. I'll let you go from there. I asked you when I can get out and you hemmed and hawed. How long will it take to sort of build the first iteration of this? Is this something that's a year out, two years out? Or is this something by the end of 2025 you can go, yeah, this is what we built. This is a version of it.

I mean, you're saying of hemming and hawing, but I mean, really just the creative process is you make some things, you test some things, you see how people...

you know, people love it. And, you know, you start to, to let more people in. And, you know, I think in the early days of Google, I remember they used to say they wanted fewer people to see it early on because they knew that the product would be better a month later. And then it'd be even better a month after that. And so they weren't in any rush to get everyone onto the, onto the, onto it as soon as possible. So we're going to be,

building, you know, as we go and getting people in, we have a waitlist set up where people can sign up and we'll let people in off that waitlist gradually. And I think it will

It's already early versions are already very quite cool. And I think there's a lot more that can be added that will make this into something that people will be really excited about. So, you know, sign up for the wait list. We'll let you in. We'll let you in when we feel like it's ready. Buzzfeed.com slash Island. I have signed up myself for the wait list. I'm not on the platform itself. Jonah Peretti, we will continue this conversation. All right. Thanks, Peter. Thank you again to Jonah Peretti.

Thanks to Jelani Carter, who produces and edits this show. Thank you to our advertisers who continue to bring it to you for free. And thanks to you guys for listening and writing, texting, tweeting, whatever we call tweeting now. I appreciate it all. See you soon. Support for the show comes from Delete.me. Your data is yours, and it's also a commodity. You can protect yourself from data brokers making a profit off your information by using Delete.me.

Their experts take care, wiping you and your family's personal data from data broker websites. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me, now at a special discount for our listeners.

Get 20% off your Delete Me plan by texting PETER to 64000. Just text PETER to 64000. We repeat things three times for emphasis. That's PETER to 64000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details.