Verizon Seeks Payment For Carrying Netflix Traffic

[Semantics]

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.

Don't we already pay for that, wtf are they using the surcharges from going over your "cap" for anyways.

 

[samm]

All this means is until any rules regarding Net Neutrality are implemented Verizon and other ISPs are going to after money left on the table. Someones gonna have to pay them their money, and my guess is on customers not corporations like Netflix or any other online streaming service as they have a building full of corporate lawyers to prevent such a thing.

My prediction:
Verizon will probably get nothing from Netflix, and will end up moving home DSL/Fios into tiered data plan structures. If you want to play you got to pay....

 

[/usr/sbin]

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?

Personally I really don't give two shits about cogent or Netflix and Verizon's dealings with them. The bottom line is if I'm paying Verizon (or any ISP for that matter) for a certain speed of service it's up to them to guarantee I get that speed. If they can't manage that then why should I order that fast Internet package? If things are going to buffer, suck, and otherwise be slow, I can achieve that on a basic plan that costs half as much... I'll just knock down my service and save myself some money. I bet if Verizon saw people cutting their bills in half because Verizon wasn't holding up their end of the deal to the customer they'd handle that situation right fucking quick. I hope Lowell McAdam chokes on a fake dick made of the dollar bills he lusts after.

 

[Stiletto]

What are they spending all that money on? Marketing budgets? Foreign companies don't have such a hard time running good networks.

So US internet service providers are unique in being evil, horrible, greedy companies? All foreign ISPs are efficiently run with unlimited bandwidth, low prices, and constant connectivity?

 

[pigwalk]

Personally I really don't give two shits about cogent or Netflix and Verizon's dealings with them. The bottom line is if I'm paying Verizon (or any ISP for that matter) for a certain speed of service it's up to them to guarantee I get that speed. If they can't manage that then why should I order that fast Internet package?

If you host your own website, and your traffic is way more than what you're paying for, you're going to be expected to pay for it. Why would Netflix be any different?

 

[/usr/sbin]

If you host your own website, and your traffic is way more than what you're paying for, you're going to be expected to pay for it. Why would Netflix be any different?

I don't know and don't give a shit about website hosting.

Bottom line, if I'm paying Verizon for high speed access so I can stream content and then they can't deliver the speed they promised me, why the hell should I pay Verizon for that high speed package? The deals Verizon has on the other side really isn't my concern, and frankly I could give less than a shit about it. If they aren't going to deliver what they're selling me then I just won't pay them for a higher tier of service and I'll downgrade my package. It really is that simple.

 

[maverikv]

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.

Clearly you don't understand how it works. If you sell a service that is on 24/7 and you can't accommodate your customers during peak hours, you need to expand your infrastructure.

I do pay to expand the pipe. I pay for my internet service. It's not my job to allocate those funds properly to ensure that I and my fellow customers receive proper service . I'm not the ISP.

 

[maverikv]

So US internet service providers are unique in being evil, horrible, greedy companies? All foreign ISPs are efficiently run with unlimited bandwidth, low prices, and constant connectivity?

We invented the internet and we're 26th in the world for internet speed

Most other countries run the internet like a utility. The government manages and improves the infrastructure, and companies lease the bandwidth and sell it to customers. By allowing regional monopolies that control the infrastructure there is little incentive for them to improve speed or capacity or compete on price .

 

[jedijeb]

Exactly.

We pay them for a service to use as we please.

They should be nothing but a dumb network that ends at our doorstep we can do whatever we please with.

We already pay more than pretty much anywhere in the industrialized world, for worse service, and now they want to double dip and charge the other end as well?

It's opportunistic and disgusting. They let their infrastructure languish, don't expand into new areas, offer us slower speeds than the rest of the world had 10 years ago, for higher prices than they pay now, they reel in the dough and now they want to limit, and extort to get money from anyone who sends traffic over their network as well. It is absolutely disgusting!

It's outright extortion. The ISP's are some of the worst, most corrupt companies of all, and the only way to fix this is to regulate them into submission.

I'm starting more and more to believe that the big ISP's need to be killed off all together, and replaced with an Interstate system type internet backbone, from which small independent local ISP's can rent access to do th efinal mile out to houses. This would provide some REAL competition.

This is exactly what we had back in the beginning when we were still using dialup. The phone companies were not interested in the internet at all, yet small local companies started dialup services everywhere. There were a few large providers like Compuserv and AOL, but the internet really took off once everyone began to have service providers directly to the internet that were cheap and you could get to with a local phone call. Once the internet finally became popular with the masses then the phone companies started offering dialup service directly killing off the small ISPs with cheaper prices because they had direct access to the backbone and the phone lines. Then cable got in the business to begin offering broadband forcing the phone companies to move up to DSL and from there the gobbling up began and we have the monopolies we are stuck with now.

The government broke up AT&T and now they have pretty much bought up all the spinoffs and become what they were in the beginning. Maybe it is time to do it again but with all these big monopolies. There would be a little confusion at first but in the long term consumers would benefit.

 

[jedijeb]

Clearly you don't understand how it works. If you sell a service that is on 24/7 and you can't accommodate your customers during peak hours, you need to expand your infrastructure.

I do pay to expand the pipe. I pay for my internet service. It's not my job to allocate those funds properly to ensure that I and my fellow customers receive proper service . I'm not the ISP.

What many people have forgotten was around 10-12 years ago the government gave the telecoms several billion dollars to upgrade their systems so everyone could have broadband. The telecoms took the money, never upgraded the lines, and then went back and asked for more help to keep their service updated. We should have already had gigabit service to almost everyone just like South Korea has had for several years, but the telecoms have blown the money somewhere else and just keep complaining they don't make any money. If they are not making money, why don't they just go bankrupt, leave the business and let other companies who can do it better have a chance?

 

[Gorankar]

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.

We already did pay, and they spent the money on bonuses, private jets and other ways instead of putting into the infrastructure as agreed. They pocketed the subsidies, and tax breaks that were supposed to be used on infrastructure.

 

[SilkySalamandr]

Regardless how you slice it or think you know whats going on, we're all fucked period.

I pay for a 50 damn mb connection and CANNOT get netflix in hd on off or on peak hours. On the weekends you can forget it and not even bother trying.

As an end user, I see what I see and something has to happen. Its quite obvious that these ISP's dont want to compete with netflix because they can't. I downloaded 3 games and my daughter watched netflix kids and Comcast was up my ass about using too much data.

Something has got to give.

 

[volt1up]

I can almost see their position, but this is the business they wanted to be in.

 

[rudy]

Don't we already pay for that, wtf are they using the surcharges from going over your "cap" for anyways.

Clearly you don't understand how it works. If you sell a service that is on 24/7 and you can't accommodate your customers during peak hours, you need to expand your infrastructure.

I do pay to expand the pipe. I pay for my internet service. It's not my job to allocate those funds properly to ensure that I and my fellow customers receive proper service . I'm not the ISP.

Yep you do pay, and now you see what you get for what you pay. Understand it now?

 

[rudy]

Hey guys I don't get it during rush hour there is a traffic jam, why doesn't the city just expand the roads? Really no really I simply don't understand. I pay taxes for unlimited use of the roads they should just expand them to 10 lanes wide so I can use them right? And of course I already pay taxes so there better not be any increase in my taxes.

 

[Sickb0y]

Hey guys I don't get it during rush hour there is a traffic jam, why doesn't the city just expand the roads? Really no really I simply don't understand. I pay taxes for unlimited use of the roads they should just expand them to 10 lanes wide so I can use them right? And of course I already pay taxes so there better not be any increase in my taxes.

get out!

 

[rat]

The market is "free" in the sense of illustrating how it would behave naturally without any regulation. Free to consolidate entirely and form monopolies.

...

Didn't we all learn about Standard Oil and the Bell System?

Pretty much this. Anyone who attempts to argue that a "True Free Market" wouldn't result in the kind of shit that Verizon is doing now is completely ignorant of history.

 

[Climber]

Hey guys I don't get it during rush hour there is a traffic jam, why doesn't the city just expand the roads? Really no really I simply don't understand. I pay taxes for unlimited use of the roads they should just expand them to 10 lanes wide so I can use them right? And of course I already pay taxes so there better not be any increase in my taxes.

You do understand that starting in 1984 American citizens began paying a subsidy to telecoms for future upgrades. You are aware that said telecoms never upgraded their infra structure effectively robbing from the American tax payer over 10 billion dollars right? So you're ok with that and us paying more, specifically to the tune of 4.5 billion a year? Because that is effectively what you are saying.

 

[BravO)))]

Hey guys I don't get it during rush hour there is a traffic jam, why doesn't the city just expand the roads? Really no really I simply don't understand. I pay taxes for unlimited use of the roads they should just expand them to 10 lanes wide so I can use them right? And of course I already pay taxes so there better not be any increase in my taxes.

Because cities have limited space. This has nothing to really do with bandwidth usage. The major isp's are trying to make data seem more about supply than what it is. With the invention of the internet, every major corporation is holding on to the old way of doing business. Technology has made almost everything cheaper, and faster to produce. Why would they devalue a product when they can make more profit by keeping the same pricing models or even raising them.

 

[pigwalk]

Why doesn't Cogent foot the bill?

 

[Twisted Kidney]

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.

It's the customer using the bandwidth not Netflix. Demanding money from Netflix opens the door to charging any website accessed over Verizon's network a fee per hit. The real problem is that Verizon is sitting there with a massive demand for one product that isn't theirs. It's driving the crazy to be providing infrastructure for something they wish they'd thought of.

 

[4BwlNvvHufcy]

Can I get some hoorays for free market capitalism here!
Of course its the opposite, if there WAS a free market and one could chose from a bunch of ISPs, then the ones that did not slow down traffic, that did not place data cap, that did not do all this crap, those would be favored to profit more... how things are right now, ISPs can squeeze many internet-based companies no problem... I mean what is the customer going to do? write a letter? heheh

Remember, free markets mean the people with all the money get to do what they want. Free markets don't mean ensuring the free ability to compete, and free markets don't mean preventing oligopolies that can buy our politicians....

 

[McFry]

Content providers cannot also be content distributors. It just so happened to end up that way because the providers had no means to distribute their content reliably, or perhaps the other way around. There is an inherit conflict of interest in this model. It would be like if Ford also paid for our highway infrastructure, and as a result they now own the roads, and want to charge a toll for any Chevy's that drive on them because the kind of tire they have wears down the asphalt faster.

Leave it to the ISP's to expand their network, and the content providers to eat it up. Letting them both originate from the same source is how you get involved in this mess.

I dont necessarily disagree that if Netflix users are actually a burden on networks that the network providers should increase the cost on the subscriber to pay for a more robust network. If we all end up having to pay $120/month for 300mbsp service fine, so be it. Shit costs money. But as I understand it, network providers still have plenty of spare bandwidth to go around. It doesnt matter if Netflix consumes 90% of the internet, if the remaining usage only constitutes 1%, leaving you with a net difference is 9% usable bandwidth for all other tasks. Comcast recognizes that netflix is eating 16% of their network, and it just irks them. It's not causing a problem, it's not doing anything, they still have plenty of resources to accommodate all other traffic without any disruption in service, but they just dont feel like any 1 source should get that much traffic without paying extra on the side.

 

[AudiTuner]

Content providers cannot also be content distributors. It just so happened to end up that way because the providers had no means to distribute their content reliably, or perhaps the other way around. There is an inherit conflict of interest in this model. It would be like if Ford also paid for our highway infrastructure, and as a result they now own the roads, and want to charge a toll for any Chevy's that drive on them because the kind of tire they have wears down the asphalt faster.

Leave it to the ISP's to expand their network, and the content providers to eat it up. Letting them both originate from the same source is how you get involved in this mess.

I dont necessarily disagree that if Netflix users are actually a burden on networks that the network providers should increase the cost on the subscriber to pay for a more robust network. If we all end up having to pay $120/month for 300mbsp service fine, so be it. Shit costs money. But as I understand it, network providers still have plenty of spare bandwidth to go around. It doesnt matter if Netflix consumes 90% of the internet, if the remaining usage only constitutes 1%, leaving you with a net difference is 9% usable bandwidth for all other tasks. Comcast recognizes that netflix is eating 16% of their network, and it just irks them. It's not causing a problem, it's not doing anything, they still have plenty of resources to accommodate all other traffic without any disruption in service, but they just dont feel like any 1 source should get that much traffic without paying extra on the side.

Good point, well said.

 

[JNavy89GT]

Content providers cannot also be content distributors. It just so happened to end up that way because the providers had no means to distribute their content reliably, or perhaps the other way around. There is an inherit conflict of interest in this model. It would be like if Ford also paid for our highway infrastructure, and as a result they now own the roads, and want to charge a toll for any Chevy's that drive on them because the kind of tire they have wears down the asphalt faster.

Leave it to the ISP's to expand their network, and the content providers to eat it up. Letting them both originate from the same source is how you get involved in this mess.

I dont necessarily disagree that if Netflix users are actually a burden on networks that the network providers should increase the cost on the subscriber to pay for a more robust network. If we all end up having to pay $120/month for 300mbsp service fine, so be it. Shit costs money. But as I understand it, network providers still have plenty of spare bandwidth to go around. It doesnt matter if Netflix consumes 90% of the internet, if the remaining usage only constitutes 1%, leaving you with a net difference is 9% usable bandwidth for all other tasks. Comcast recognizes that netflix is eating 16% of their network, and it just irks them. It's not causing a problem, it's not doing anything, they still have plenty of resources to accommodate all other traffic without any disruption in service, but they just dont feel like any 1 source should get that much traffic without paying extra on the side.

agreed! I'm particularly upset about the whole US internet situation having dealt with a 9month ordeal just to get usable broadband that is not "capped" to my new house in the country. I'm a couple miles outside of a small town, so I anticipated some issues, but not to this degree, and the limited options for 3g/4g/satellite are something the US should be ashamed of. $60/mo for 5gb of data? Really????? As other's have stated, these companies have taken and continue to take subsidies in various forms from the US tax payer, and customers and promise a service that is almost always not up to the specs that was sold to the taxpayer/customer. That service still appeases 99+% of people so we don't hear too much bellyaching. However, when issues like this come along, it's a moment in time that we could very well reflect on 10-20 years from now and either be complaining about "how it was in the good ole' days streaming Netflix for $8/mo plus our ISP fees" and maybe then be paying the indexed equivalent of 3-5 times as much then due to these silly profit games these companies play. I'll use the airlines as an example both good and bad. They've kept the price of flights down for the most part, despite the rises in jet fuel that is 2-3 times higher than early 2000's with some creative fee structures which are annoying but do tend to keep prices in check for most people. Yet, if I paid American Airlines $100/mo for "unlimited" flying and they told me only 2 flights per month, but the plane will go as fast as it can; to me that's not unlimited. These companies(ISP's) are banking on the general and almost absolute ignorance of the American public; which is actually a good bet. We are too distracted to pay attention to these things that matter; when they matter. Only complaining years and years later when it really effects us in time, money etc.... Well folks, this is that moment we may look back on and say "what if".........

 

[Ion Silverbolt]

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.

What's sad is you would probably squeeze below the 250GB a month if you just pirated everything. It's so screwed up a system that the most sensible option is the illegal one.

 

[WinSomeLoseNone]

What's sad is you would probably squeeze below the 250GB a month if you just pirated everything. It's so screwed up a system that the most sensible option is the illegal one.

Hmm, this an interesting idea.

So if I leech without seeding and torrent only those movies which are available on the services I subscribe to, have I committed a crime? The content is paid for!

I know I know, the MPAA would still shit all over me even though the net effect would be exactly the same.

 

[NoOther]

It's the customer using the bandwidth not Netflix. Demanding money from Netflix opens the door to charging any website accessed over Verizon's network a fee per hit. The real problem is that Verizon is sitting there with a massive demand for one product that isn't theirs. It's driving the crazy to be providing infrastructure for something they wish they'd thought of.

No one is demanding money of Netflix. Verizon is demanding money from Cogent. But people are too ignorant to read and find the real facts of the case. And bandwidth is a 2 way street. The customer isn't using the bandwidth, Cogent is by sending traffic through Verizon.

 

[XvMMvX]

No one is demanding money of Netflix. Verizon is demanding money from Cogent. But people are too ignorant to read and find the real facts of the case. And bandwidth is a 2 way street. The customer isn't using the bandwidth, Cogent is by sending traffic through Verizon.

Verizon is charging their customers for that bandwidth. How hard is that to understand? Netflix and Cogent aren't just flooding Verizon's network with traffic. They are requesting it and PAYING verizon for it.

Verizon just wants to double dip and they pretty much can because they have an monoply in a lot of places.

 

[NoOther]

Verizon is charging their customers for that bandwidth. How hard is that to understand? Netflix and Cogent aren't just flooding Verizon's network with traffic. They are requesting it and PAYING verizon for it.

Verizon just wants to double dip and they pretty much can because they have an monoply in a lot of places.

How hard is it to understand peering and transit agreements? How hard is it to understand that Verizon is not asking Netflix to pay anything? How hard is it to understand that the traffic is originating from Cogents network and needs to pass through Verizon's? How hard is it to understand that Cogent is regularly sending more traffic over Verizon's network and isn't paying an overage for it? Customers are getting their bandwidth. That isn't the issue. The issue is that Cogent is sending too much traffic to Verizon that far exceeds their peering agreement. So Verizon is sticking strictly to that peering agreement until Cogent decides to pay the overage, the same thing that Verizon charges other ISPs, the same thing that other Tier 1 providers charge ISPs.

How hard is that?

 

[Stiletto]

How hard is it to understand peering and transit agreements? How hard is it to understand that Verizon is not asking Netflix to pay anything? How hard is it to understand that the traffic is originating from Cogents network and needs to pass through Verizon's? How hard is it to understand that Cogent is regularly sending more traffic over Verizon's network and isn't paying an overage for it? Customers are getting their bandwidth. That isn't the issue. The issue is that Cogent is sending too much traffic to Verizon that far exceeds their peering agreement. So Verizon is sticking strictly to that peering agreement until Cogent decides to pay the overage, the same thing that Verizon charges other ISPs, the same thing that other Tier 1 providers charge ISPs.

How hard is that?

NO! VERIZUN BAD! HOT WATER BURN BABY!

 

[toolbox7448]

What's sad is you would probably squeeze below the 250GB a month if you just pirated everything. It's so screwed up a system that the most sensible option is the illegal one.

Sorry for being a bit off topic but I am curious. I've only had Comcast for the last 6 months so maybe I'm missing something but the entire time I've had them the 250 gig limit has been suspended.

Isn't this suspended for everyone on Comcast or am I on some sort of unique plan?

 

[AudiTuner]

Sorry for being a bit off topic but I am curious. I've only had Comcast for the last 6 months so maybe I'm missing something but the entire time I've had them the 250 gig limit has been suspended.

Isn't this suspended for everyone on Comcast or am I on some sort of unique plan?

Same for me. I'm on the Delmarva Peninsula for what it's worth.

 

[GotNoRice]

How hard is it to understand peering and transit agreements? How hard is it to understand that Verizon is not asking Netflix to pay anything? How hard is it to understand that the traffic is originating from Cogents network and needs to pass through Verizon's? How hard is it to understand that Cogent is regularly sending more traffic over Verizon's network and isn't paying an overage for it? Customers are getting their bandwidth. That isn't the issue. The issue is that Cogent is sending too much traffic to Verizon that far exceeds their peering agreement. So Verizon is sticking strictly to that peering agreement until Cogent decides to pay the overage, the same thing that Verizon charges other ISPs, the same thing that other Tier 1 providers charge ISPs.

How hard is that?

Netflix/Cogent provides a service that Verizon users use and value greatly - isn't that worth anything for Verizon?

Cogent doesn't generally provide internet service for residential users, but it does often provide bandwidth for companies like Netflix. Meanwhile, Verizon has tons of residential customers who are primarily consuming data... Where did the expectation that the amount of data transferred between would ever be equal come from? As a network where it's end-users consume far more content than they serve out, Verizon dealing with disproportionate data transfer in peering agreements should simply be part of their normal business operations.

 

[m3ta1head]

Verizon is charging their customers for that bandwidth. How hard is that to understand? Netflix and Cogent aren't just flooding Verizon's network with traffic. They are requesting it and PAYING verizon for it.

Verizon just wants to double dip and they pretty much can because they have an monoply in a lot of places.

Saw a good analogy in the comments of the article. This would be akin to Fedex or UPS charging a subscription fee to their end customers for deliveries. The amount of deliveries requested by customers from one particular vendor spikes noticeably, and so Fedex/UPS now want to charge that vendor as well for a service that the customer has requested and is already paying for through the subscription. Straight up double dipping.

 

[NoOther]

Netflix/Cogent provides a service that Verizon users use and value greatly - isn't that worth anything for Verizon?

Cogent doesn't generally provide internet service for residential users, but it does often provide bandwidth for companies like Netflix. Meanwhile, Verizon has tons of residential customers who are primarily consuming data... Where did the expectation that the amount of data transferred between would ever be equal come from? As a network where it's end-users consume far more content than they serve out, Verizon dealing with disproportionate data transfer in peering agreements should simply be part of their normal business operations.

Rice, it comes from every peering agreement ever. That is the point of a peering agreement. If Netflix really cared about its customers, it would find a backbone to use as its ISP. The problem is you guys are putting all the blame on Verizon, and that really is ridiculous. Its not that Verizon is a good company, its that Cogent is even more greedy.

Saying that Verizon should take up traffic from another ISP as normal business operations is utterly ridiculous. Why? Why should Verizon pay to upgrade their networks to carry another networks traffic? Why shouldn't Cogent pay since they are the ones sending the traffic over Verizon's network? Other ISPs are expected to pay for transit agreements, why does Cogent get a free pass. Answer me that. So far no one has yet to answer why Cogent should get a free pass out of all the other ISPs out there, why Cogent?

 

[NoOther]

Saw a good analogy in the comments of the article. This would be akin to Fedex or UPS charging a subscription fee to their end customers for deliveries. The amount of deliveries requested by customers from one particular vendor spikes noticeably, and so Fedex/UPS now want to charge that vendor as well for a service that the customer has requested and is already paying for through the subscription. Straight up double dipping.

You realize that already happens right?

 

[GotNoRice]

Why should Verizon pay to upgrade their networks to carry another networks traffic?

Because that is the content that their users want. Does there really need to be any more justification than this?

Other ISPs are expected to pay for transit agreements, why does Cogent get a free pass. Answer me that. So far no one has yet to answer why Cogent should get a free pass out of all the other ISPs out there, why Cogent?

Because this issue has gone beyond peering agreements of the past. Has there ever been a peering agreement in the past where so much of the cause of the disproportionate bandwidth is due to a single service?

If they really need to rework their peering agreement, then fine, but the mistake IMO is Verizon not valuing that traffic any more than any other generic internet traffic. Netflix is a service that users place a lot of value in. Being able to provide netflix content reliably is a big boon for an ISP in the eyes of their subscribers. That itself is a perk that should offer sufficient compensation for any extra bandwidth load cogent places on the Verizon network. It's not Cogent pushing that data onto Verizon - it's Verizon users requesting that data. Any other ISP who's traffic consists more of traffic from a singular valuable service rather than misc generic internet traffic should get similar consideration IMO.

 

[NoOther]

Because that is the content that their users want. Does there really need to be any more justification than this?

If the users want that content, why doesn't Cogent pay the transit fees, just like every other ISP out there that has to pay them?

Because this issue has gone beyond peering agreements of the past. Has there ever been a peering agreement in the past where so much of the cause of the disproportionate bandwidth is due to a single service?

Absolutely, there have always been peering agreements where one side is completely lopsided, thus the transit agreements.

If they really need to rework their peering agreement, then fine, but the mistake IMO is Verizon not valuing that traffic any more than any other generic internet traffic. Netflix is a service that users place a lot of value in. Being able to provide netflix content reliably is a big boon for an ISP in the eyes of their subscribers. That itself is a perk that should offer sufficient compensation for any extra bandwidth load cogent places on the Verizon network. It's not Cogent pushing that data onto Verizon - it's Verizon users requesting that data. Any other ISP who's traffic consists more of traffic from a singular valuable service rather than misc generic internet traffic should get similar consideration IMO.

How is the mistake Verizon's? Explain to me why it is Verizon's fault for not carrying someone else's traffic through their network? You are mistaken by continuing to make it Verizon's error. Cogent is the one that refuses to budge on anything.

 

[ChedWick]

How is the mistake Verizon's? Explain to me why it is Verizon's fault for not carrying someone else's traffic through their network? You are mistaken by continuing to make it Verizon's error. Cogent is the one that refuses to budge on anything.

It's Verizon's traffic too. Their users are requesting it.