Verizon Seeks Payment For Carrying Netflix Traffic

NoOther said:
No, not like Google and other internet services. One service is taking up 60% of their bandwidth, one service. So its not the same thing at all. Plus they are using Verizon Bandwidth to put out a competing product to FIOS TV, yet Verizon gets nothing for it. And it isn't just Verizon against Netflix, its really Verizon and Cogent. ISPs have peering agreements with other ISPs to use each other's networks to deliver their traffic. Part of Verizon's complaint is that Cogent is using far more of Verizon's bandwidth than Verizon is using of theirs. So basically what they are saying to Netflix is that there needs to be a new peering agreement between Verizon and Cogent. That is a perfectly legitimate gripe on Verizon's part.

Unfortunately for Verizon, all the consumer sees is that they can't get Netflix data and the consumer doesn't care about peering agreements between ISPs or that Cogent is belligerent and refuses to even pay the already agreed upon rates nor restructure the peering agreement for current circumstances. So Verizon throttles traffic from Cogent as a response to Cogent refusing to pay, and the consumer only sees that they can't get Netflix.
Click to expand...


Verizon gets nothing? How about the expensive monthly fees payed for by every single subscriber accessing their service.... It doesn't matter if it's competing with their own business, that's what happens when ISPs are also content providers. Maybe they need to change their business model to keep up with the times and try actually competing with Netflix instead......
 
Wierdo said:
Last I read it was a fraction of a penny per terabyte or something of the sort. And going down every year.
Click to expand...

Yet every year Cox raises the cost of my home internet service.

However, I also COX business at work (they have a fiber drop into the building). While it's way more expensive than the home service, every year the price drops. Since the company has been growing, we've opted to increase the speed for a slight increase in price every couple years.
 
NoOther said:
Plus they are using Verizon Bandwidth to put out a competing product to FIOS TV, yet Verizon gets nothing for it. And it isn't just Verizon against Netflix, its really Verizon and Cogent. ISPs have peering agreements with other ISPs to use each other's networks to deliver their traffic. Part of Verizon's complaint is that Cogent is using far more of Verizon's bandwidth than Verizon is using of theirs. So basically what they are saying to Netflix is that there needs to be a new peering agreement between Verizon and Cogent. That is a perfectly legitimate gripe on Verizon's part.
Click to expand...

See that's the slippery slope. If you set the precedent that ISP can charge what they want for 3rd parties to gain access to their network, then you create an invisible billing force to the consumer which large companies can hide behind. This allows the ISP to arbitrarily set their price without much say from the consumer.

When ISPs deal with larger 3rd party companies directly (ie: Netflix/Congent), they are more likely to get a bigger price increase then dealing with a price conscious consumer. This is a marketing strategy that only affects 3rd parties and consumers negatively.

In the end, if Verizon/Comcast et all think that streaming video is costing them money, they have a right to raise our cable bill directly then pull these BS shell games on pricing.
 
Biznatch said:
Verizon gets nothing? How about the expensive monthly fees payed for by every single subscriber accessing their service.... It doesn't matter if it's competing with their own business, that's what happens when ISPs are also content providers. Maybe they need to change their business model to keep up with the times and try actually competing with Netflix instead......
Click to expand...

Their business model is keeping up with the times. Again, the conflict is over peering issues with Cogent who seems to be unwilling to pay according to the terms or negotiate new deals. How about instead of just selecting some scapegoat you look at the whole issue? When you are paying fees to Verizon, what you are paying for is bandwidth on their networks. You are not paying for access to other services. Verizon is not obligated to make sure you can connect to Netflix. Netflix pays Cogent for their backbone, Cogent has a peering agreement with Verizon, yet refuses to live up to the agreement. So if you want to be upset, be upset with Cogent and Verizon.
 
Didn't take long for these fascist corporations to already begin purging net neutrality from the history books no thanks to their political hookers. What Verizon? You and AT&T didn't make billions a year each charging people $20 a month for SMS/MMS plans for nearly 10 years? Made so much money the original creator of the impact-free network service regretted ever creating a way to do such a thing on a wireless network? Now figures you're the first ones looking to make more money. You already plunder and pillage peoples wallets on the wireless front, now you're destined to double dip yourself again on the fixed broadband options.

Yeah makes 100% sense to charge people $15 per 1GB of bandwidth. If your network can't support it than limit peoples speeds. Limiting bandwidth by charging for it does absolutely NOTHING to solve network problems. Any network engineer or administrator can tell you that. Just say you want to make more GODDAMN MONEY and be done with it. State your intentions and stop being cowards hiding behind the Exaflood and your crappy network that you don't want to invest in making better.

AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Comcast, CenturyLink, Time Warner, Verizon, Charter, and Cox. All of you really could give a damn about competing so long as it keeps you from having to spend a dollar on upgrades or fighting one another in the market.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
See that's the slippery slope. If you set the precedent that ISP can charge what they want for 3rd parties to gain access to their network, then you create an invisible billing force to the consumer which large companies can hide behind. This allows the ISP to arbitrarily set their price without much say from the consumer.

When ISPs deal with larger 3rd party companies directly (ie: Netflix/Congent), they are more likely to get a bigger price increase then dealing with a price conscious consumer. This is a marketing strategy that only affects 3rd parties and consumers negatively.

In the end, if Verizon/Comcast et all think that streaming video is costing them money, they have a right to raise our cable bill directly then pull these BS shell games on pricing.
Click to expand...

These are peering agreements, not payment models for third parties to gain access to their network. Peering agreements are wide spread among ISPs, in fact a peering agreement already exists between Cogent and Verizon, one which Cogent is apparently unwilling to fulfill or renegotiate. Verizon has peering agreements with many other ISPs as well, but only seems to be having this much of an issue with Cogent. This has been going on for quite some time.
 
WinSomeLoseNone said:
I would love to dump VZ but the only alternative I have is Comcast and I just switched from them after receiving warnings for exceeding 250GB data/month.

I stream Netflix/Hulu/Amazon video daily as I don't have cable TV. There are 4 main users in my house so over a month we easily stream 250GB HD video. Not to mention the gaming downloads and daily updates. A single game can be 5-40 GB (Hitman, Sleeping dogs).

Hilarious that the ruling stated that there was ample competition in the marketplace. There is NO competition near me as VZ and Comcast have a stranglehold.

Fuck these corporations and their greed.
Click to expand...

What you said made me immediately think of this, I believe it is relevant to the topic:

gordonGekko_greedIsGood_poster_340x369.jpg
 
NoOther said:
Their business model is keeping up with the times. Again, the conflict is over peering issues with Cogent who seems to be unwilling to pay according to the terms or negotiate new deals. How about instead of just selecting some scapegoat you look at the whole issue? When you are paying fees to Verizon, what you are paying for is bandwidth on their networks. You are not paying for access to other services. Verizon is not obligated to make sure you can connect to Netflix. Netflix pays Cogent for their backbone, Cogent has a peering agreement with Verizon, yet refuses to live up to the agreement. So if you want to be upset, be upset with Cogent and Verizon.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I'm paying for bandwidth to use as I please. This doesn't mean they can decide that Netflix is competing with their own services so they can restrict my access to that service, or throttle my connection to the service.

If people are using a different service than their own, there is a pretty good chance that it's a better service. So they should be working on improving their service to get customers to switch, not throttling competing services....

And once again, none of this would matter if the consumers actually had a choice of ISPs. I would love to drop Verizon/TWC for a smaller local ISP if it could provide equivalent service. But the ISPs refuse to lease their government subsidized lines to smaller companies for reasonable prices, because why the F would they want the competition? That would prevent them from pulling this bullshit and grabbing every dime they can.
 
Biznatch said:
Exactly, I'm paying for bandwidth to use as I please. This doesn't mean they can decide that Netflix is competing with their own services so they can restrict my access to that service, or throttle my connection to the service.

If people are using a different service than their own, there is a pretty good chance that it's a better service. So they should be working on improving their service to get customers to switch, not throttling competing services....

And once again, none of this would matter if the consumers actually had a choice of ISPs. I would love to drop Verizon/TWC for a smaller local ISP if it could provide equivalent service. But the ISPs refuse to lease their government subsidized lines to smaller companies for reasonable prices, because why the F would they want the competition? That would prevent them from pulling this bullshit and grabbing every dime they can.
Click to expand...

Amen... There's a great ISP in my state. They've got a rock solid setup, and I never had any issues with them.
Then I bought a house, they don't service that area... only wired option is Time Warner.
I've got faster service on paper, but Youtube, Netflix are not as quick, even with more bandwidth.
 
since these cable companies have been making buckets of money hand over first even during the worst of the financial crisis...

one has to figure the actual data isn't costing them that much.


We need really sweeping changes in the way this sort of stuff is regulated in this country ... the screws really need to be tightened down on the these companies..
 
Ididar said:
The consumer is already paying Verizon to access a certain amount of bandwidth per month. Why should Netflix also have to pay for the same bandwidth? They're double-dipping. Charging both Netflix AND the consumer for the same data. Yes, Netflix is a lot of that data ... but the customer is already paying for XXXGB/month. Who the heck cares what it is? Obviously, the ISP's do because they have competing services and want to ensure their service has an advantage.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You should read up on peering. Here is a good article that even explains the situation between Verizon and Cogent and why you aren't getting all the bandwidth to Netflix. I am just confused how people can keep misinterpreting what is going on. If you are going to be upset, at least be upset for the right reasons. This isn't a net neutrality issue, and it isn't a Netflix paying for service issue. And it isn't a consumers bandwidth being limited issue. It is a spat over peering between 2 ISPs where one ISP (Cogent) is greatly exceeding the agreed upon limit and refuses to pay for transit service, or renegotiate some other peering agreement.

As for Verizon being greedy in this case, also understand that many ISPs have to pay transit fees to use different backbone services currently. Most Tier 1 ISPs, of which Verizon is one, require transit agreements to use their networks, which is almost always the case when there is an unequal pairing between networks, which happens to be the case here. So why should Cogent expect anything different than other ISPs experience? So other ISPs should have to pay through transit agreements for using far, far less bandwidth than Cogent uses? How is that fair?
 
Biznatch said:
Exactly, I'm paying for bandwidth to use as I please. This doesn't mean they can decide that Netflix is competing with their own services so they can restrict my access to that service, or throttle my connection to the service.

If people are using a different service than their own, there is a pretty good chance that it's a better service. So they should be working on improving their service to get customers to switch, not throttling competing services....

And once again, none of this would matter if the consumers actually had a choice of ISPs. I would love to drop Verizon/TWC for a smaller local ISP if it could provide equivalent service. But the ISPs refuse to lease their government subsidized lines to smaller companies for reasonable prices, because why the F would they want the competition? That would prevent them from pulling this bullshit and grabbing every dime they can.
Click to expand...

They aren't throttling Netflix. Geez people, read up on the real issue. Cogent is flooding the peering ports between them and Verizon. There is no real throttle, there is no service being turned down, there is Verizon not opening up more infrastructure to Cogent, because there is no agreement for them to do so.

The smaller local ISP would have to charge you more for the same or better service you get through Verizon. Smaller ISPs have tried that before and no one wanted to go that route, which is why they all ended up failing. And, you would still might have similar problems since this is an issue of peering between a large Tier 1 provider and Cogent. So your smaller ISP might lease bandwidth from Verizon and you would get the same result.
 
NoOther said:
Incorrect. You should read up on peering. Here is a good article that even explains the situation between Verizon and Cogent and why you aren't getting all the bandwidth to Netflix. I am just confused how people can keep misinterpreting what is going on. If you are going to be upset, at least be upset for the right reasons. This isn't a net neutrality issue, and it isn't a Netflix paying for service issue. And it isn't a consumers bandwidth being limited issue. It is a spat over peering between 2 ISPs where one ISP (Cogent) is greatly exceeding the agreed upon limit and refuses to pay for transit service, or renegotiate some other peering agreement.

As for Verizon being greedy in this case, also understand that many ISPs have to pay transit fees to use different backbone services currently. Most Tier 1 ISPs, of which Verizon is one, require transit agreements to use their networks, which is almost always the case when there is an unequal pairing between networks, which happens to be the case here. So why should Cogent expect anything different than other ISPs experience? So other ISPs should have to pay through transit agreements for using far, far less bandwidth than Cogent uses? How is that fair?
Click to expand...

Even more of a reason why we need to kill off all private Tier 1's, replace them with a federal interstate type system, which independent and competing local ISP's can rent bandwidth from in order to sell the last mile service.

The current system is ultimately flawed, and needs to be completely broken and replaced.
 
Welcome to the future, guys...

... it begins.

With the FCC unable to regulate or enforce net neutrality rules, we're going to start seeing these pop up.

Expect something like this in your next FiOS, UVerse, Charter-Time Warner bill:
Media streaming service fee -- $XXX.XX per GB per month

Video streaming website fee

File transfer and download fee

Bandwidth overage fee

Non-compliance copyright fee

Traversing non-company broadband network fee (aka-- visiting and using the services not provided by your broadband and cable TV service provider, and using the services of a competitor; or going outside the network of your ISP and visiting the websites provided on a competitor's ISP.)
​
Then, we'll start having countries with own their Internet and charging tariffs and data usage fees of countries connecting to their country's internal Internet, and the world will have a very dismal future.

*puts on tinfoil hat*
 
Haserath said:
I think the real problem is, nobody knows how much data costs, so there is a disconnect between paying $xxx for xxMb/s.

I really think Data should be charged by the MB/GB, and have the maximum amount of bandwidth that can be handled by the network at the time(perhaps charge more for peak load times).
Click to expand...
We know how much data costs, and it cost pennies. Most of us work in IT. We know.

The problem is this. Companies want to sit back and collect, without doing anything to their infrastructure. Rather then reinvesting the profits to grow their business, they rather cap the bandwidth as the internet evolves. The problem only gets worse, and people are cutting TV in favor of internet. So most internet providers are also TV providers. There's a conflict of interest right there to grow your infrastructure.

On top of the fact that no cable ISP can compete with another, like TWC and Comcast, only strengthens their hold on customers. We're not dumb, we know they're full of it.
 
NoOther said:
It's more like...

Verizon: We see you take up 60% of our traffic and yet pay no fees to us for use of our network.

Netflix: You should hook up and use your new equipment so we can stream even more traffic over your network. We pay Cogent, so its all good.

Verizon: You are using most of our bandwidth and pay us nothing, yet you want us to hook up to more of your equipment so you can use even more of our bandwidth for free?

Netflix: But your customers want our service, you should do it for them.

Verizon: So we should continue to pay to upgrade our equipment to provide more bandwidth so you can make more money off of our customers using our bandwidth for free?

Netflix: Exactly.
Click to expand...

Ummm.. NO.

The VZ customers are already paying for the bandwidth they use. Netflix is also paying for the bandwidth they use through their ISP.

This is like saying that you, as a customer, should have to pay ALL ISPs that the data that you use goes through.

Anybody ready for $1000+ ISP bills per month for 256k service?

VZ is making money hand over fist and what they are really trying to do is to extort money out of companies/people that have no responsibility whatsoever to give them more money.
 
NoOther said:
They aren't throttling Netflix. Geez people, read up on the real issue. Cogent is flooding the peering ports between them and Verizon. There is no real throttle, there is no service being turned down, there is Verizon not opening up more infrastructure to Cogent, because there is no agreement for them to do so.

The smaller local ISP would have to charge you more for the same or better service you get through Verizon. Smaller ISPs have tried that before and no one wanted to go that route, which is why they all ended up failing. And, you would still might have similar problems since this is an issue of peering between a large Tier 1 provider and Cogent. So your smaller ISP might lease bandwidth from Verizon and you would get the same result.
Click to expand...


The smaller ISPs fail because they can't lease the lines for a reasonable price that allows them to resell for a profit while competing with the giant corporations, who are the ones they are leasing from.... Government should take back the subsidized lines and lease them out themselves, including to the large corporations.
 
Biznatch said:
The smaller ISPs fail because they can't lease the lines for a reasonable price that allows them to resell for a profit while competing with the giant corporations, who are the ones they are leasing from.... Government should take back the subsidized lines and lease them out themselves, including to the large corporations.
Click to expand...

The government should seize private property and then distribute it themselves at a cost, thus making money? Yeah, because government is well known for doing things in the best interest of its citizens, and doing it well and efficiently... I remember that happening...never.
 
cyclone3d said:
Ummm.. NO.

The VZ customers are already paying for the bandwidth they use. Netflix is also paying for the bandwidth they use through their ISP.

This is like saying that you, as a customer, should have to pay ALL ISPs that the data that you use goes through.

Anybody ready for $1000+ ISP bills per month for 256k service?

VZ is making money hand over fist and what they are really trying to do is to extort money out of companies/people that have no responsibility whatsoever to give them more money.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everything you just said there is incorrect. Read through the thread where it is explained in more depth.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040638410 said:
Even more of a reason why we need to kill off all private Tier 1's, replace them with a federal interstate type system, which independent and competing local ISP's can rent bandwidth from in order to sell the last mile service.

The current system is ultimately flawed, and needs to be completely broken and replaced.
Click to expand...

Now this I can somewhat agree with. Cost/time/etc is a major factor in trying to do this though. There are good precedents for this type of system out there, such as Sweden. But even in Sweden the government does not own the infrastructure, they subsidized it. The infrastructure is owned by a single Telecom who then leases it out to ISPs. Coincidentally that same telecom also acts as an ISP to customers as well. Part of the provision is that the 2 sides had to have a firewall and fair compete clause with other ISPs.
 
NoOther said:
It's more like...

Verizon: We see you take up 60% of our traffic and yet pay no fees to us for use of our network.

Netflix: You should hook up and use your new equipment so we can stream even more traffic over your network. We pay Cogent, so its all good.

Verizon: You are using most of our bandwidth and pay us nothing, yet you want us to hook up to more of your equipment so you can use even more of our bandwidth for free?

Netflix: But your customers want our service, you should do it for them.

Verizon: So we should continue to pay to upgrade our equipment to provide more bandwidth so you can make more money off of our customers using our bandwidth for free?

Netflix: Exactly.
Click to expand...


This is asinine. If no customer anywhere used Netflix, Netflix would not be using any of Verizon's network traffic. They don't just pump shit down the tubes for the hell of it.
 
There is only so many Gee Bees to go around guys.

It is not like they are selling bandwidth they don't have the structure to maintain because they have a monoply... oh wait.
 
Another reason I am glad I have optimum. Switched from Fios to Optimum when I moved about a year ago and Netflix service improved, but my upload speeds are a little slower.
Restore net neutrality.
 
notarat said:
Thank god net neutrality went away so this can't happe...err...nm
Click to expand...

Again, this has nothing at all to do with net neutrality. It has to do with peering agreements. People keep focusing on the wrong problem and don't understand what is going on in this case.
 
ChedWick said:
This is asinine. If no customer anywhere used Netflix, Netflix would not be using any of Verizon's network traffic. They don't just pump shit down the tubes for the hell of it.
Click to expand...

So basically Verizon having to carry Cogent's traffic above the agreed upon peering limit without charging them transit fees (which they charge other ISPs for the exact same situation) is what you would consider fair? So basically since Netflix is Netflix, their ISP should get special privileges not afforded to anyone else?
 
Its funny how I read people all over the internet saying they never did this stuff before net neutrality so why would they do it now and to let them regulate themselves. they didn't do it before because they didn't think of it yet. Then when they finally did think it up they had to find a way to get consumers to allow it. So they came up with bullshit data caps to make it look like they can't handle the load and purposefully provide shitty service and then blame all these things on competing services like streaming video and torrents. All while pocketing the tax dollars we gave them to upgrade the infrastructure to keep up with the demand that everyone saw coming. As using that money to upgrade and expand would have messed up the plan to get everyone okay with data caps and premium pipes and meant a smaller yacht.

and here we are, it didn't even take them 3 months to start fucking over people once the regulations were gone. By the time the FCC gets their shit together this BS will have already been going on for a year or more and all the fucktards in this country will already be accepting it as the just the way things are and nothing will be fixed. Get ready for all online services will start costing more.

The funny shit will be when Netflix starts charging more and all the fucktards go apeshit on them again.
 
So.... basically they are lying when they say they aren't throttling NetFlix then...

Looks like I picked the wrong frickin' time to switch to FIOS. Dammit. I knew they were dicks but people were soooo happy with FIOS internet. It's a shame I'm passed my 30 day period because I would definitely be drop kicking their asses right back to the curb.
 
TechLarry said:
So.... basically they are lying when they say they aren't throttling NetFlix then...

Looks like I picked the wrong frickin' time to switch to FIOS. Dammit. I knew they were dicks but people were soooo happy with FIOS internet. It's a shame I'm passed my 30 day period because I would definitely be drop kicking their asses right back to the curb.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't lying because they aren't throttling Netflix. They are abiding by the peering agreement they have with Cogent and not offering anymore than what is in the peering agreement. Again, so much misinformation out there and misdirected anger towards one company when there are multiple companies involved in the debacle.
 
NoOther said:
No, they aren't lying because they aren't throttling Netflix. They are abiding by the peering agreement they have with Cogent and not offering anymore than what is in the peering agreement. Again, so much misinformation out there and misdirected anger towards one company when there are multiple companies involved in the debacle.
Click to expand...

This may be the true underlying justification, but at the same time, you bet your ass that they don't have any incentive to be accommodating or come up with a reasonable fair solution to the peering problem, because doing so would bolster Netflix, and hurt their own On Demand services.

It's all interconnected.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040638701 said:
This may be the true underlying justification, but at the same time, you bet your ass that they don't have any incentive to be accommodating or come up with a reasonable fair solution to the peering problem, because doing so would bolster Netflix, and hurt their own On Demand services.

It's all interconnected.
Click to expand...

But that would also depend on what a reasonably fair solution is. For instance, most Tier 1 providers, not just Verizon, charge ISPs for unequal peering through transit agreements. That is what Verizon is proposing with Cogent. So, who really is at fault here? Verizon for asking for the same thing they ask of other ISPs or Cogent for wanting Verizon to carry more and more of their traffic above the currently established peering agreement with no transit agreement?

I mean I am not a fan of all things Verizon, heck I loathe most of their practices especially on their wireless side. But at the same time I can hardly fault them for calling Cogent out on their BS asking Verizon to offer special circumstances to Cogent that are not offered to other ISPs. Especially since Cogent is literally flooding Verizon with traffic.
 
climb678 said:
Possible partial solution:
"Though the FCC won't appeal the ruling, a spokesperson said chairman Tom Wheeler will work to establish new rules that prevent service providers like Verizon from charging companies a fee to get the highest performance speeds."
http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/19/fcc-rework-net-neutraility/
Click to expand...

Then they will simply throttle said service. Not a partial solution at all and then if you don't want to be throttled, then you have to pay more to either move to another tier to get you unthrottled or pay an unthrottling fee. No, the solution was to make net neutrality a law of the land and the fact that the FCC won't appeal it is very disheartening.
 
And if we all could subscribe to cable services a la cart instead of endless stacks of bundles to get the few shows we like so many of us wouldn't be cutting cable in favor of services like Netflix.
ISPs are just pissy because they're like the RIAA and big music companies, holding on to business models that no longer fit the times crying foul, pointing fingers, and doing everything they can to keep change from happening.
Really, If I could get HBO, AMC, ABC Family, FX and Discovery without the hundreds of other useless cable channels I would in a heartbeat. $100 a month for a bunch of stuff I could care less about to see a couple of shows I like is total BS.
Cable TV is a dated service in desperate need of an overhaul, not something that should be latched on to and used as an excuse to keep competition at bay.
 
NoOther said:
But that would also depend on what a reasonably fair solution is. For instance, most Tier 1 providers, not just Verizon, charge ISPs for unequal peering through transit agreements. That is what Verizon is proposing with Cogent. So, who really is at fault here? Verizon for asking for the same thing they ask of other ISPs or Cogent for wanting Verizon to carry more and more of their traffic above the currently established peering agreement with no transit agreement?

I mean I am not a fan of all things Verizon, heck I loathe most of their practices especially on their wireless side. But at the same time I can hardly fault them for calling Cogent out on their BS asking Verizon to offer special circumstances to Cogent that are not offered to other ISPs. Especially since Cogent is literally flooding Verizon with traffic.
Click to expand...

The traffic isn't Cogent's traffic. It's Verizon's. Verizon customers are demanding this traffic which they pay Verizon to provide. Verizon is already paid for the data, they are trying to double dip.
 
"Hey, this is Verizon. You want to watch a movie, just one movie, that will be $8 please"

"Hey, this is Netflix, you want to watch literally hundreds of thousands of movies and tv shows, all for $10 a month? Come to us"

"Netflix, this is bullcrap, how the hell are we supposed to compete with you when you price your content so good?!"

"I dunno Verizon, perhaps, do what we do? Give your customers a huge choice?"

"Nah! We're just gonna try and sue you for all our bandwidth you use! Our customers should be using OUR media bandwidth, not yours!"

This whole situation in a nutshell

My ISP shaw did the same thing, our family was getting eerily close to our data cap, and so I wanted to pay the extra $10 a month to bump the cap

"Hi, I'd like to bump the cap please"

"Sure, can I ask why?"

"Cause we use it all up cause there's 6 people in our house watching netflix all day long"

"Oh, well, you know, if you get shows through Shaw, it doesn't count towards your data cap!"

"Why doesn't it count towards my data cap if I pay you guys for video, but it counts if I pay netflix for video?"

"Er, I dunno, that's just how it is"

"Does shaw have a service like netflix where they have hundreds of thousands of pieces of content for me to watch?"

"Yeah, we have Shaw Plus, its $25 a month, and its lots of movies and TV shows"

"How many?"

"I dunno, lots"

"Define lots. Hundreds of movies? Thousands? Tens of thousands?"

"No, its more like several hundred"

"So, $25 a month to watch the same movies that are on netflix more or less, but only a couple hundred, and the upside is it doesn't count towards my data cap?"

"That's right"

"Nah, I'll just pay the $10 for the data cap increase, I'm still paying $5 less than if I went with your service"

"Ok......"
 
TechLarry said:
So.... basically they are lying when they say they aren't throttling NetFlix then...

Looks like I picked the wrong frickin' time to switch to FIOS. Dammit. I knew they were dicks but people were soooo happy with FIOS internet. It's a shame I'm passed my 30 day period because I would definitely be drop kicking their asses right back to the curb.
Click to expand...

SHAW throttled our families netflix for three weeks, so I called and complained

They said they didn't throttle, so I loaded up a netflix video, started out at 4500KBPS, then was only getting it at 45KBPS, then I went to shaws service, was getting 3000KBPS constant

They said "Maybe the server is laggy" and I pointed out that before the throttle kicked in, I was getting HIGHER speeds than I was through SHAWS service

Voila, magically, our netflix traffic stopped being throttled 20 minutes later

Gotta catch them on their bullshit
 
demingo said:
The traffic isn't Cogent's traffic. It's Verizon's. Verizon customers are demanding this traffic which they pay Verizon to provide. Verizon is already paid for the data, they are trying to double dip.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The Netflix service is streamed from Netflix through Cogent to Verizon. "Requesting" traffic is not a correct metric. And it isn't just "Verizon customers", it is customers of Netflix, who may or may not be using Verizon. Your request is to Netflix, how you get there may be through Verizon, but Verizon is in no way obligated to carry traffic from Netflix over their network. Verizon is not an ISP for Netflix, Cogent is. So you are requesting traffic from Cogent, but Cogent doesn't have the ability to deliver you said traffic, they need to use Verizon's network to get you that traffic. Which is fine, and Verizon would be happy to do so, if Cogent then leased the extra bandwidth necessary above the already existing peering agreement to service all their customers. Currently Verizon is providing exactly what the peering agreement calls for, no more, no less.

The problem people have here is they think that paying Verizon for bandwidth, is for all bandwidth to where ever they want to go. That is not at all true. You are paying Verizon to offer you their bandwidth, which they are. They are in no way obligated to provide to you bandwidth to or from another ISP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top