Verizon Seeks Payment For Carrying Netflix Traffic

plupien79

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 7, 2013
Messages
238
So why can't Cognet and VZ get this sorted our to their customers can be happy and not complain about service?
 

c@Nc

n00b
Joined
Feb 19, 2014
Messages
2
I typed a post and the internet ate it :(

Verizon is trying to get double paid which will raise the consumers cost. Netflix pays their ISP for service and if Verizon wants to get that money they should start by creating a service that is competitive with netflixs ISP.

The fact they say their current infrastructure can't handle it is complete BS. The US tax payers gave billions to these ISPs and they didn't keep their end of the deal. They should have upgraded the infrastructure rather than hand out bonuses. Verizon is trying to play the poor little me can't handle the big bad Netflix load. Verizon and all other ISPs should just copy what google does and stop making excuses. Google has no problem with Netflix loads. It has no problem with them because google doesn't compete with netflixs content. The only reason Verizon has a problem with it is because in the quarterly graphs it shows Netflix using more band then their own competing offers. If we pay for data usage it should not matter what the fuck that data usage is used for. Whether it be games, music, video, pictures, or whatever else you could think of using it for. But it matters because the graph says Netflix is kicking there ass and they can't figure out how to compete except to get Netflix to cover their losses that they may or may not have had if Netflix did not exist.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,722
Pretty much everything you just said there is incorrect. Read through the thread where it is explained in more depth.

Netflix is not an ISP.

Netflix already pays for their connection from their ISP. Why should they have to pay other ISPs for the bandwidth they are already paying for?

And Verizon is already collecting money from their customers for their connections, so why should they even be allowed to try to get money from Netflix?

Look at the first comment on the page with the article. Pretty much sums it up.
 

ChedWick

Gawd
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
596
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?

This is off the point, which was your ass backwards rendition of what is going on in conversation form is ass backwards.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
So why can't Cognet and VZ get this sorted our to their customers can be happy and not complain about service?

That is exactly the right question. No one really knows what is going on there. Neither side wants to budge from their position. Both sides are being greedy about the whole affair.

Netflix is not an ISP.

Netflix already pays for their connection from their ISP. Why should they have to pay other ISPs for the bandwidth they are already paying for?

And Verizon is already collecting money from their customers for their connections, so why should they even be allowed to try to get money from Netflix?

Look at the first comment on the page with the article. Pretty much sums it up.

Verizon is not asking Netflix to pay them. Verizon is asking Cogent to pay them. The beef is between Verizon and Cogent. That is what has everyone confused. Most of the debate stems over the fact that the traffic in question is because of Netflix. There is an established peering agreement between Verizon and Cogent, which Cogent is abusing. Verizon in response to Cogent being ridiculous, is being ridiculous themselves. The end result is that Verizon is only adhering strictly to the letter of the law in the peering agreement and no more. Cogent is trying to demand Verizon allow more traffic without having to do a transit agreement. Something that is required of almost all unequal peering arrangements. Not just with Verizon but with the other Tier 1 providers as well.

This is off the point, which was your ass backwards rendition of what is going on in conversation form is ass backwards.

Care to explain how any of it was ass backwards besides just trolling?
 

Jorona

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,545
So why can't Cognet and VZ get this sorted our to their customers can be happy and not complain about service?

This is the question that needs to answered. Cogent is using Verizon more then Verizon is using it. Verizon simply wants them to abide by the agreement they already had, which is to pay for the overage. Cogent is a bunch of pole gobblers and won't abide by their agreement, or try to negotiate a new agreement.

Netflix isn't the problem.
Verizon isn't the problem.
Throttling isn't the problem.

COGENT is the problem.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
How can they legally ask a company to give them money for their intended use?

They can do whatever they want because its their internet connection, it is no more ridiculous then how they write in their TOS that you cannot run a server at your house. The price and features of any ISP are based on the average usage. When the common man started streaming videos in high amounts the average usage sky rocketed.

I personally have no problem paying more to get more I am sick of all these Americans thinking that unlimited should always be free, lets make things clear their was never unlimited, you just didn't realize what the limits were.
 

MrCaffeineX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
1,535
Google has no problem with Netflix loads. It has no problem with them because google doesn't compete with netflixs content

Actually, an argument could be made that Google in fact does compete with Netflix, since YouTube is another streaming video content service, making it even more compelling that they are not throttling the service on their fiber.
 

Ocellaris

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
19,062
Actually, an argument could be made that Google in fact does compete with Netflix, since YouTube is another streaming video content service, making it even more compelling that they are not throttling the service on their fiber.

Definitely true. If people are watching videos on Netflix, that means they aren't watching cat videos on Youtube.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,387
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.

I disagree.

When I pay Verizon/Comcast/whomever for internet service, I am paying them for internet service. Not service that is just within their tier. I should be able to use my full bandwidth allotment 24/7 with ANY other party on the entire internet. That is why I pay them. There should be no further charge from my traffic, either to me or to the IP;s I am connecting to.

A true net neutrality agreement would also have to force free unidirectional peering with any network that so desires it.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Definitely true. If people are watching videos on Netflix, that means they aren't watching cat videos on Youtube.

See, now you have identified the true problem, Cat Videos. If it weren't for those damn Cat Videos, we would all have free and clear unlimited bandwidth for pennies on the dollar.
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
Netflix and Youtube constitute just over half of all North American internet traffic.

Sort of like the guy at your apartment complex who parks his big rig across 5 of the 10 parking spaces. Then when the apartment manager approaches him about the disproportionate amount of space he occupies, people scream at him for being so greedy, and demand laws preventing apartment managers from telling anyone where they can park on their private property. All because the tenants all are addicted to watching TV at big rig douche's place. Have you seen his DVD collection?
So the tenants have no problem with it only the apartment manager, it's not illegal just seems like the manger is being a duche. As those parking spaces are for tenants, so if anyone is going to have a problem with it it should be the tenants. Seems like the manager is unwanted help.
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
I look at it like this.

The tennants are paying for the 5 parking spaces the big rig is using up, so the apartment manager shouldn't have a say in it.

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).

Also it's not the tenants fault the apartment complex has allowed 60 cars but only has 30 spaces the manager oversolid on parking spaces for tenants, now this crappy manager is demanding to pay extra to park over at overflow.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
Zarathustra[H];1040638962 said:
I disagree.

When I pay Verizon/Comcast/whomever for internet service, I am paying them for internet service. Not service that is just within their tier. I should be able to use my full bandwidth allotment 24/7 with ANY other party on the entire internet. That is why I pay them. There should be no further charge from my traffic, either to me or to the IP;s I am connecting to.

A true net neutrality agreement would also have to force free unidirectional peering with any network that so desires it.

You can disagree, but in your agreement it stipulates what that service is. That is like saying when you buy an EZ pass, you are paying for the privilege of using any toll roads anywhere at the cost of your own state.

Here is the thing, you can use your full bandwidth allotment 24/7 with ANY other party on the entire internet now. However, they may not be able to use the full bandwidth to get to you. That is the case here.

That true net neutrality agreement would pretty guarantee the breakdown of the internet. You are asking companies to freely allow access to their equipment and network to any other network no matter how much traffic they can or should be able to handle. That is completely unreasonable. In that scenario, some small startup ISP can charge virtually nothing for their customers because all they would have to do is provide a simple onramp to the internet and let all the other big companies out there pay all the upkeep and upgrades to the equipment to handle all the traffic.
 

panhead

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
902
They can do whatever they want because its their internet connection, it is no more ridiculous then how they write in their TOS that you cannot run a server at your house. The price and features of any ISP are based on the average usage. When the common man started streaming videos in high amounts the average usage sky rocketed.

I personally have no problem paying more to get more I am sick of all these Americans thinking that unlimited should always be free, lets make things clear their was never unlimited, you just didn't realize what the limits were.

Written like a true ISP industry shill. When ISPs restrict access to their competition, i.e. video on demand, then 'their' exclusive network that they were granted by the taxpayers no longer serves the public interest and it is time for the FCC to classify ISPs as common carrier services.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,722
They can do whatever they want because its their internet connection, it is no more ridiculous then how they write in their TOS that you cannot run a server at your house. The price and features of any ISP are based on the average usage. When the common man started streaming videos in high amounts the average usage sky rocketed.

I personally have no problem paying more to get more I am sick of all these Americans thinking that unlimited should always be free, lets make things clear their was never unlimited, you just didn't realize what the limits were.


When an ISP advertises AND sells their service as UNLIMITED, we expect to have TRUE UNLIMITED service, just like we were told we would when we signed up for the service.

If that is not the case, then we will sue them to kingdom come for false advertising.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
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.


No, not private property. The taxpayer subsidized infrastructure that these giant corporations are using....
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,387
That true net neutrality agreement would pretty guarantee the breakdown of the internet. You are asking companies to freely allow access to their equipment and network to any other network no matter how much traffic they can or should be able to handle. That is completely unreasonable. In that scenario, some small startup ISP can charge virtually nothing for their customers because all they would have to do is provide a simple onramp to the internet and let all the other big companies out there pay all the upkeep and upgrades to the equipment to handle all the traffic.

If they can't supply and guarantee their subscribers full bandwidth up to and through the border of their own network, full duplex, they have no business selling "Internet" service.

It's not the "Internet" unless it leaves the local network. These aren't the bad old pre-internet AOL/Compuserve days.

It's a completely different issue if a third party s routing traffic THROUGH their tier and out to a third party subscriber outside their network. In that case peering payments would be appropriate.

But if that traffic is headed to one of their own subscribers, then the peering traffic should already be considered paid for by the subscribers fees. They are paying for Internet access, not "most of the internet, most of the time" access.
 

demingo

Trump is My President!
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Messages
2,702
Zarathustra[H];1040638999 said:
If they can't supply and guarantee their subscribers full bandwidth up to and through the border of their own network, full duplex, they have no business selling "Internet" service.

It's not the "Internet" unless it leaves the local network. These aren't the bad old pre-internet AOL/Compuserve days.

It's a completely different issue if a third party s routing traffic THROUGH their tier and out to a third party subscriber outside their network. In that case peering payments would be appropriate.

But if that traffic is headed to one of their own subscribers, then the peering traffic should already be considered paid for by the subscribers fees. They are paying for Internet access, not "most of the internet, most of the time" access.

The peering argument in itself is flawed as the whole situation is rigged. Verizon has many systems in place (both technical and legal) that assure that Verizon customers will never send as much data out as they request. As a last mile ISP all of Verizon's usage will be heavily biased towards downstream data. Verizon is simply trying to double dip and collect fees for the data from both it's customer and the other Tier 1 providers.

The only reason they are able to do this is the lack of competition for ISP service and lack of regulation.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
When an ISP advertises AND sells their service as UNLIMITED, we expect to have TRUE UNLIMITED service, just like we were told we would when we signed up for the service.

If that is not the case, then we will sue them to kingdom come for false advertising.

Then you are blind or stupid there is no such thing as unlimited just limits you can live with or you are ignorant of, go to a buffet and see if you can take home the food, or even if the food its good, its not its shit. And nicer items will cost more.

Because of your ridiculous demand for unlimited all of us have lived with inferior internet connections and artificial rules that have cost us more in other areas.

Go look at web hosting and you see the same thing they claim unlimited bandwidth and storage on all the popular entry level hosting plans but in exchange for that if you do ANYTHING that would actually try to take advantage of that unlimited transfer you would trigger a catch for CPU or RAM usage or some other technicality in the rules.

I prefer to pay an appropriate amount of money for what I use and in exchange get access to ANYTHING I want to do. I have tried unlimited web hosts and none of them work, I have tried unlimited buffets and they turned out to be more expensive, I have tried unlimited internet and it sucked.

There is no such thing as unlimited people, if its too good to be true it probably is, have none of you ever heard these truths in your life before? There is only one thing you need to know for the first time in many years we are finally seeing people hit the limit and now ISPs are going to solve the problem one way or the other. And based on what solution you demand you will receive the shitty service you deserve. I personally prefer to pay for what I use and be able to use it as I please.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
No, not private property. The taxpayer subsidized infrastructure that these giant corporations are using....

Subsidized does not mean 'owned by'. Those companies own that infrastructure. It is still private property. Subsidized simply means that the government or some entity helped pay for that service/item. That does not imply they have ownership. And the government didn't subsidize it for giant corporations to use and not even for the citizens. The government subsidized it to aid their own use.
 

maverikv

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,992
Then you are blind or stupid there is no such thing as unlimited just limits you can live with or you are ignorant of, go to a buffet and see if you can take home the food, or even if the food its good, its not its shit. And nicer items will cost more.

Because of your ridiculous demand for unlimited all of us have lived with inferior internet connections and artificial rules that have cost us more in other areas.

Go look at web hosting and you see the same thing they claim unlimited bandwidth and storage on all the popular entry level hosting plans but in exchange for that if you do ANYTHING that would actually try to take advantage of that unlimited transfer you would trigger a catch for CPU or RAM usage or some other technicality in the rules.

I prefer to pay an appropriate amount of money for what I use and in exchange get access to ANYTHING I want to do. I have tried unlimited web hosts and none of them work, I have tried unlimited buffets and they turned out to be more expensive, I have tried unlimited internet and it sucked.

There is no such thing as unlimited people, if its too good to be true it probably is, have none of you ever heard these truths in your life before? There is only one thing you need to know for the first time in many years we are finally seeing people hit the limit and now ISPs are going to solve the problem one way or the other. And based on what solution you demand you will receive the shitty service you deserve. I personally prefer to pay for what I use and be able to use it as I please.

You've allowed internet providers to corrupt the way you see data transmission. Think of the internet as a big pipe. The pipe doesn't get clogged when one person uses water all the time, it gets clogged when everyone tries to use the pipe at once.

Its not about GBs. Its about load capacity. If the ISP's can't support their advertised speeds at load capacity, it doesn't matter if some guy is downloading a bunch of movies during off-load times. They need to expand the pipe.
 

NoOther

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
6,468
The peering argument in itself is flawed as the whole situation is rigged. Verizon has many systems in place (both technical and legal) that assure that Verizon customers will never send as much data out as they request. As a last mile ISP all of Verizon's usage will be heavily biased towards downstream data. Verizon is simply trying to double dip and collect fees for the data from both it's customer and the other Tier 1 providers.

The only reason they are able to do this is the lack of competition for ISP service and lack of regulation.

First, Verizon is not a last mile ISP. They are one of the biggest Tier 1 providers out there. Their customers can send more data out than in because Verizon pretty much has the largest network. They are not trying to "double dip" as people keep claiming. They are working as the system in place has been designed, like every other Tier 1 provider. Even in other countries it works this way as well only there are usually far fewer Tier 1 providers, many times only 1. But then again, the US is far larger than most other countries.

As for lack of competition and regulation, neither of those are specifically true. There is a lot of competition out there, it just depends on the location. Certainly it is skewed in their favor because they have such a large infrastructure already. But in many places they are competing directly with cable providers. There is also far more regulation than you would think. In fact, regulation is part of what got us into this mess. It is a double edged sword that cuts both ways. Large companies commonly use regulation even more to their advantage.
 

Whach

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2011
Messages
1,125
Customer point of view: I pay my ISP to use the internet. I pay to be a member of Netflix. therefore, I should be able to access Netflix via my ISP.


Netflix point of view: We pay our ISP, Cogent, for our service traffic. We can offer you our cache equipment to install so as to increase traffic capacity and reduce our costs by bypassing Cogent. You don't pay cogent to connect with you anyway, so why make us pay to connect with you?

ISP point of view: Ummmm, no. Netflix, You are using alot of our traffic capacity to make your profits. We don't have to take your equipment to help you. Anyway, the more this hurts you, the better for our own video service - unless you pay us use our network. Either way, better for our shareholders/profits. You should us pay more due to the amount of traffic you create on our network. The/our customers should probably pay too.

Cogent (bandwidth provider) point of view: So, Netflix is looking to lower costs by bypassing us more. Verizon isn't upgrading equipment from us as fast as we would like. hmmmm.
 

dj_spanmaster

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
413
Kids, quit yer bitchin' and put your keyboards to work! At the very least, message Tom Wheeler on Twitter. Let him know we need Net Neutrality, and that monopolistic TW+Comcast merger should be fixed too!
 

McFry

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
1,715
Netflix and Youtube constitute just over half of all North American internet traffic.

Sort of like the guy at your apartment complex who parks his big rig across 5 of the 10 parking spaces. Then when the apartment manager approaches him about the disproportionate amount of space he occupies, people scream at him for being so greedy, and demand laws preventing apartment managers from telling anyone where they can park on their private property. All because the tenants all are addicted to watching TV at big rig douche's place. Have you seen his DVD collection?

lol I swear I knew you would roll up in here with one of the worst possible opinions.
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,228
I'm sure it's been said before but Netflix isn't using the bandwidth, the users are, is not Netflix suddenly flooding the market with useless data because they can.

If Verizon is allowed to do this, we lose big time as a consumer. We've already lost with caps.
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
I'm sure it's been said before but Netflix isn't using the bandwidth, the users are, is not Netflix suddenly flooding the market with useless data because they can.

If Verizon is allowed to do this, we lose big time as a consumer. We've already lost with caps.

Caps don't even solve the problem which is ISP over sell their bandwidth per the node, so they can advertise higher Internet speeds in an area but they can't actually support no where near those speeds if more than just a couple users heavily use it at once.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,542
Aren't they missing the whole point. I already pay Verizon $200+ per month for phone/internet/tv over FiOS. They get paid ENOUGH. They are making ENORMOUS PROFITS. They are not owed a fucking dime.

How did we arrive at the point I pay $100/mo for the privilege of having an internet connection, not actually using it just having it, and THEN have to pay another $100/mo to actually access anything over it?

Face it ISP's, you fucked up. You did so well you've become:

A PUBLIC UTILITY and need to be regulated accordingly. You should have been less effective, but nope you screwed up and now we all depend on you. Oh well, PRICE CONTROLS and Regulated Monopoly Status for you now motherfuckers. Enjoy. :cool:

For National Security and Public Safety reasons the costs will be dictated, $10/mo for phone/basic cable/basic slow internet. Additional $50/mo for 75/35 high speed internet, additional $25/mo for HD channels, and $10 each for premium services like HBO and Showtime.

Refuse and you will simply be Nationalized. ... again, in the interest of National Security and Public Safety. :eek::rolleyes::p
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
Aren't they missing the whole point. I already pay Verizon $200+ per month for phone/internet/tv over FiOS. They get paid ENOUGH. They are making ENORMOUS PROFITS. They are not owed a fucking dime.

All your ridiculous emotion is lovely, and entirely factless.

Verizon's profit margin has been shrinking every year for the last several years.

2008: 6.6%
2009: 3.4%
2010: 2.4%
2011: 2.2%
2012: 0.8%

I know, I know...percents don't matter when you're talking about big companies. Just big numbers that make you angry.
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,817
All your ridiculous emotion is lovely, and entirely factless.

Verizon's profit margin has been shrinking every year for the last several years.

2008: 6.6%
2009: 3.4%
2010: 2.4%
2011: 2.2%
2012: 0.8%

I know, I know...percents don't matter when you're talking about big companies. Just big numbers that make you angry.

http://www.verizon.com/investor/news_verizon_reports_doubledigit_earnings_growth_in_2q_2013_07182013.htm

Double digit margins 2013.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/business/verizon-profit-up-40-as-wireless-revenue-gains.html

Profits up 40%
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,228
Caps don't even solve the problem which is ISP over sell their bandwidth per the node, so they can advertise higher Internet speeds in an area but they can't actually support no where near those speeds if more than just a couple users heavily use it at once.

I'm not entirely sure why you responded to me with this?
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
Double digit margins 2013.

Profits up 40%

Weird. It's like there's no difference in yearly margins and quarterly margins. Also no difference between net profit margins and operating profit margins. Hell, not even any difference between income and profit. I'm learning so much.
 

Jorona

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
3,545
This is just Verizon trying to go around Cogent.

Cogent are a company of clown shoes and knuckle fuckers.
 

pigwalk

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
8,396
I sort of see it like two islands with a bridge between the two.

One island has a kick ass titty bar, full nude, no pasties, even handies in the back some times.

People from no titty bar island are flocking over to titty bar island big time. Traffic is all fucked up, people love titties and handjobs after all.

A new or wider bridges would help. Which island pays for the new bridges?

Who cares, I'm going to a titty bar right now, way better than netflix.
 

Parmenides

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
6,578

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
You've allowed internet providers to corrupt the way you see data transmission. Think of the internet as a big pipe. The pipe doesn't get clogged when one person uses water all the time, it gets clogged when everyone tries to use the pipe at once.

Its not about GBs. Its about load capacity. If the ISP's can't support their advertised speeds at load capacity, it doesn't matter if some guy is downloading a bunch of movies during off-load times. They need to expand the pipe.

I understand perfectly well how it works you just didn't bother to read a thing I said. Expand the pipe? That is your solutions? OK how about you pay to expand the pipe then. As a separate part of your bill, when they upgrade the service in your area they just charge you a fee that is how much it costs them to expand the pipe plus a profit margin.
 
Top