Verizon Seeks Payment For Carrying Netflix Traffic

[Stiletto]

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.

What's truly remarkable about this statement is that it advocates for EXACTLY what net neutrality was originally meant to prevent: ISPs giving big, popular, corporate traffic preference over smaller websites, either to the detriment of speed available to access those sites(restricting them to very narrow pipelines), or outright making them unavailable without buying a "premium tier" of service, where the non-premium tiers would only allow you to access the big content providers and sites.

 

[GotNoRice]

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 ultimately Cogent doesn't have any direct responsibility to Verizon internet subscribers, Verizon does.

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

Obviously. My statement that you quoted was specifically in regards to that lopsided traffic being caused by a single service, such as Netflix. Netflix at any given time can make up between a quarter to over half of all internet traffic in North America. There really has not been anything in the past that compares to that, unless you go back to dial-up times. A single service being the cause of the lopsided traffic is not the same as a traditional unbalanced peering agreement which would likely be the result of a culmination of random internet traffic. When it's a single service causing the "problem", the value that that service provides to the end users of the "victim" ISP like Verizon needs to be taken into account, and should indeed serve as adequate compensation for a certain about of imbalance in traffic.

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 their mistake because they are letting their users down. Netflix is an extremely important service for many Verizon users. Netflix, and the ability to use it, adds value to a Verizon internet connection. It's that value that I feel Verizon isn't taking into account, both in the sense that they aren't more willing to come to a favorable peering arrangment with cogent, and the fact that they let it become a problem for their end users in the first place. At the end of the day, Verizon users don't know or care where their netflix traffic comes from nor is it their problem, they just want it to work. It IS Verizon's responsibility to make sure that happens.

What's truly remarkable about this statement is that it advocates for EXACTLY what net neutrality was originally meant to prevent: ISPs giving big, popular, corporate traffic preference over smaller websites, either to the detriment of speed available to access those sites(restricting them to very narrow pipelines), or outright making them unavailable without buying a "premium tier" of service, where the non-premium tiers would only allow you to access the big content providers and sites.

My "statement" didn't advocate giving preference to anything. Money is already changing hands in many of these peering agreements depending on the balance of the traffic. I merely stated in situations where a significant amount of that unbalanced traffic is caused by a single service, the value that that service provides to the end users should be factored into the peering agreement - where again, money is already often changing hands. Negotiating a peering agreement doesn't automatically mean anyone's traffic gets preference, and has nothing to do with "premium tiers". My post definitely didn't say anything about limiting anyone else's traffic or blocking websites; that was all you.

Though it doesn't really surprise me that you still think Net Neutrality is about certain websites being blocked.

net neutrality is a failure, and somehow I can still go to any website on any internet provider.

 

[Stiletto]

My "statement" didn't advocate giving preference to anything. Money is already changing hands in many of these peering agreements depending on the balance of the traffic. I merely stated in situations where a significant amount of that unbalanced traffic is caused by a single service, the value that that service provides to the end users should be factored into the peering agreement - where again, money is already often changing hands. Negotiating a peering agreement doesn't automatically mean anyone's traffic gets preference, and has nothing to do with "premium tiers". My post definitely didn't say anything about limiting anyone else's traffic or blocking websites; that was all you.

Okay then, you don't want Verizon to "give preference" to Netflix traffic, you just want them to "value" it "more"...because they already have a peering agreement, and you seem to think it should be updated to reflected that increased "value".

Though it doesn't really surprise me that you still think Net Neutrality is about certain websites being blocked.

It doesn't really surprise me that there are very few people who understood the beginnings of the net neutrality debate and the fact that it's been going on for years.

It also doesn't surprise me that on this forum there are an abundance of solipsists.

 

[Stiletto]

And oh...yeah, Wikipedia, but whatever:

Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. The term was coined by Columbia media law professor Tim Wu.[1][2][3][4]

There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law. Since the early 2000s, advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even block out competitors. (The term "net neutrality" didn't come into popular use until several years later, however.) The possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate, especially in the United States.

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[5] Vinton Cerf, considered a "father of the Internet" and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, as well as Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of net neutrality.[6][7]

Tiers? What tiers? You talkin crazy. U mad.

 

[GotNoRice]

Okay then, you don't want Verizon to "give preference" to Netflix traffic, you just want them to "value" it "more"...because they already have a peering agreement, and you seem to think it should be updated to reflected that increased "value".

Yes, the current "value" they place upon netflix is such that they seemingly don't care when their subscribers receive degraded service. I'm not sure if you're able to comprehend the difference or not, but placing value on something doesn't automatically mean giving it preference.

It doesn't really surprise me that there are very few people who understood the beginnings of the net neutrality debate and the fact that it's been going on for years.

Maybe you can explain why you continue to focus on what you feel the Net Neutrality debate was about years ago while the rest of us have moved on to the present day reality of the issue?

 

[rudy]

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.

It has everything to do with it, cities don't have limited space they can build double or triple decker highways. They can always go up if they can't go out.

If there is any fault here it is only in the government not allowing or forcing more competition. But the facts are that Verizon is not making that much money. You claim it goes to CEO compensations, so what that happens in every company its part of the cost of doing business and must be factored into your payment. Tell the CEO you will pay more for unlimited or faster speeds and I promise you he will jump at the opportunity to satisfy his share holders and his own pocket book. But no that is not what is going on here, what is going on is consumers who are just as selfish as the CEO think that they should have unlimited bandwidth, unlimited speeds, and do it all for $25/ mo.

 

[Stiletto]

Yes, the current "value" they place upon netflix is such that they seemingly don't care when their subscribers receive degraded service.

Why should they care? They're Verizon, not Netflix. Verizon sells a portal, just like other ISPs. Netflix sells content, just like other content providers. Verizon does not sell Netflix content, nor see any of Netflix's profits.

I'm not sure if you're able to comprehend the difference or not, but placing value on something doesn't automatically mean giving it preference.

Right. You don't prefer something. You just see it as more valuable.

prefer
verb
1
to show partiality toward <I generally prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla>
Synonyms care (for), favor, lean (toward or towards), like
Related Words adore, cotton (to), delight (in), dig, enjoy, fancy, groove (on), relish, revel (in); choose, cull, handpick, name, pick, select, single (out), take; covet, crave, desire, hanker (for or after), want, wish (for); bias, prejudice; incline (toward), tend (to); admire, appreciate, cherish, prize, treasure, value

Totally different.

Maybe you can explain why you continue to focus on what you feel the Net Neutrality debate was about years ago while the rest of us have moved on to the present day reality of the issue?

Maybe you can explain why "the rest of us" doesn't appear to include the internet? Perhaps gun control is actually a debate about having a proper grip on your pistol. Perhaps gay marriage is actually a debate about how happy one should be in matrimony. Perhaps the immigration debate concerns Canadian geese.

Or perhaps you don't get to redefine debates in order to apply them neatly to your outrage du jour.

 

[BravO)))]

Not sure how this plays into bait and switch and wire fraud. Maybe a lawyer can explain this portion. If a company advertises a certain speed, you sign up for said speed, and they artificially degrade your services. How would this play out?

 

[BravO)))]

It has everything to do with it, cities don't have limited space they can build double or triple decker highways. They can always go up if they can't go out.

If there is any fault here it is only in the government not allowing or forcing more competition. But the facts are that Verizon is not making that much money. You claim it goes to CEO compensations, so what that happens in every company its part of the cost of doing business and must be factored into your payment. Tell the CEO you will pay more for unlimited or faster speeds and I promise you he will jump at the opportunity to satisfy his share holders and his own pocket book. But no that is not what is going on here, what is going on is consumers who are just as selfish as the CEO think that they should have unlimited bandwidth, unlimited speeds, and do it all for $25/ mo.

Nope.

 

[GotNoRice]

Why should they care? They're Verizon, not Netflix. Verizon sells a portal, just like other ISPs. Netflix sells content, just like other content providers. Verizon does not sell Netflix content, nor see any of Netflix's profits.

Because Verizon should care about keeping their customers happy. If I have to explain why to you, that's pretty sad.

Right. You don't prefer something. You just see it as more valuable.

This thread is mainly discussing peering agreements, in which money often already changes hands depending on the specifics involved. I'm hoping that I don't need to explain to you the relationship between "value" and monetary compensation. It's entirely possible that the existing framework of peering agreements would violate "net neutrality" as you've come to understand it, but within the context of this thread, I was discussing the "value" of netflix traffic as a potential partial or whole substitute for monetary compensation from cogent to Verizon specifically when negotiating the peering agreement.

I'm wondering if you understand that how traffic is handled within the context of a peering agreement as it crosses networks, and how traffic is handled once it's on the ISPs internal network, are two different things?

Maybe you can explain why "the rest of us" doesn't appear to include the internet? Perhaps gun control is actually a debate about having a proper grip on your pistol. Perhaps gay marriage is actually a debate about how happy one should be in matrimony. Perhaps the immigration debate concerns Canadian geese.

Or perhaps you don't get to redefine debates in order to apply them neatly to your outrage du jour.

Your argument is more akin to claiming music piracy is primarily about people making copies of CDs using their CD-R drives, then throwing a hissy fit when some mentions The Pirate Bay.

 

[SLee]

Not sure how this plays into bait and switch and wire fraud. Maybe a lawyer can explain this portion. If a company advertises a certain speed, you sign up for said speed, and they artificially degrade your services. How would this play out?

I'd imagine it'll be laughed out of court, since the Internet has always worked on a best-effort basis, over-subscription is a fact of life in Internet, anything telecom related, water, electricity, transportation, a typical residential account has no QoS guarantees and even for more expensive business accounts, the ISP can only guarantee things within their own network and nothing outside of it.

 

[InternationalHat]

Peering agreements between providers as large as Verizon and Cogent are a matter of good faith to make sure the fundamental underpinnings of the internet actually work properly.

I don't believe there is any historical basis for providers of that size to toll-take in the form of transit costs. Usually that is reserved for smaller regional networks etc, right?

I don't think the transit costs argument really works here if that's the case.

 

[Stiletto]

Your argument is more akin to claiming music piracy is primarily about people making copies of CDs using their CD-R drives, then throwing a hissy fit when some mentions The Pirate Bay.

It's not my argument. It's the established definition of the debate, which I've already provided links to back up. You can keep defining it in whatever stupid way you like, but net neutrality is about neutral treatment of all data by internet providers, hence the name "net neutrality". I know this because I was writing articles on the topic before you likely even knew the phrase existed. I'm not sure whether your willful, condescending ignorance is more amusing or irritating.

The argument you are making is not the net neutrality argument. Whatever you want to call it is your choice, but calling it net neutrality is objectively wrong. And the fact that you have the gall to continue your sneering pronouncement of it as otherwise is particularly extraordinary considering that you yourself are arguing for the exact opposite of what net neutrality wants: equal treatment of all data by internet service providers, with equal "value" applied to all.

Rice ain't the only thing of which you haven't any.

 

[GotNoRice]

You can keep defining it in whatever stupid way you like, but net neutrality is about neutral treatment of all data by internet providers, hence the name "net neutrality".

I've never disagreed with that definition, I just thought it was funny when you used being able to visit any website as an example of why net neutrality's "failure" isn't a big deal:

net neutrality is a failure, and somehow I can still go to any website on any internet provider.

I know this because I was writing articles on the topic before you likely even knew the phrase existed. I'm not sure whether your willful, condescending ignorance is more amusing or irritating.

lol who's mad now

The argument you are making is not the net neutrality argument. Whatever you want to call it is your choice, but calling it net neutrality is objectively wrong. And the fact that you have the gall to continue your sneering pronouncement of it as otherwise is particularly extraordinary considering that you yourself are arguing for the exact opposite of what net neutrality wants: equal treatment of all data by internet service providers, with equal "value" applied to all..

I'm not even sure what post of mine you're trying to reference. I do find your passive aggressive insults to be rather amusing though, you must really be raging

 

[GotNoRice]

The argument you are making is not the net neutrality argument. Whatever you want to call it is your choice, but calling it net neutrality is objectively wrong. And the fact that you have the gall to continue your sneering pronouncement of it as otherwise is particularly extraordinary considering that you yourself are arguing for the exact opposite of what net neutrality wants: equal treatment of all data by internet service providers, with equal "value" applied to all.

I'm just wondering if you understand what a peering agreement is? It's not really directly related to net neutrality. Most of my posts in this thread have been about peering agreements, so if you think I was talking about net neutrality I suppose that explains some of your confusion.

As I said before, Peering agreements are about the exchange of data between different networks, while net neutrality is primarily about what an ISP does with that data once it's on their network (this definition is supported even by the links you provided). Two different things.

 

[/usr/sbin]

Why should they care? They're Verizon, not Netflix. Verizon sells a portal, just like other ISPs. Netflix sells content, just like other content providers. Verizon does not sell Netflix content, nor see any of Netflix's profits.

The fact is that there is value in the Netflix traffic for Verizon. Netflux / Youtube / and other streaming traffic sells their more expensive Internet packages. Sure, netflix might not directly pay them for the increased traffic, but it directly leads to higher sales.

If that isn't enough, how about advertisement direct from Verizon themseleves (http://www.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/). Right from their fucking webpage where they list the benefits of the higher packages: "Upload and download in a flash. Plus, play games and stream videos virtually lag-free" and... "The gold standard in computing speeds. Perfect for households that enjoy streaming content on the Internet on multiple devices at the same time."

If Verizon is selling me the self proclaimed "Gold Standard" and specifically references the ability to stream content to multiple devices at the same time, and I can't even get a fucking DVD quality stream to work on ONE device because they don't handle their side of the business to make sure I get the transit capacity I need then I sure as fuck have a right to be pissed. If they can't deliver what they are selling me, why the fuck should I pay them higher rates when their lowest package would provide me the same shitty service?

 

[Jorona]

This is so fucking stupid, this entire issue with Verizon and Netflix has NOTHING TO DO with Net Neutrality. Infact Net Neutrality may make the issue worse. The link between Cogent and Verizon is saturated. Verizon doesn't want to build it out because only 10% on the traffic going through is theirs, the majority is Cogents. Verizon just wants Cogent to stand by their peer agreement and balance the scales abit. The peer agreement calls for a 50/50 split of bandwidth between the two. So as much going one way is going the other way. Cogent is using the majority of the link. Why should Verizon pay to expand that link? It's not their fault that it's saturated.

That brings us to Verizon trying to get Netflix to buy bandwidth from them. This is so they can bypass Cogent. Just have the data go directly from Netflix to Verizon. Cut out the lazy fucks at Cogent completely, and suddenly the bottleneck is gone for Verizon customers trying to watch their videos. No more Cogent fucking up the peer agreement, and happy customers. Sounds like a win-win for Verizon, thus why they are pursuing this avenue.

So what this comes down to isn't that Verizon is handling some data higher then others and horse shit like that. This is a blatant bottleneck cause by the pack of tools at Cogent. The guys are the reason East coast Gamers have had lag and packet loss on west coast servers for YEARS. Most recently it was Comcast and Verizon League of Legends players getting fucked by Cogents inability to handle its bandwidth properly.

So once again, this really isn't Verizons fault. This is COGENT. Unfortunately Verizon is the face of the internet for their subscribers. So they're catching all the flack.

 

[Stiletto]

The fact is that there is value in the Netflix traffic for Verizon. Netflux / Youtube / and other streaming traffic sells their more expensive Internet packages. Sure, netflix might not directly pay them for the increased traffic, but it directly leads to higher sales.

The fact is that if Netflix went bust tomorrow, people would fill that gap with Amazon Instant Video, Crackle, Hulu and everything else. Netflix isn't some magical entity that creates internet traffic. They're simply the most efficient content streamer so far, from both a content and price perspective. Not to mention the fact that broadband speeds were increasing well before Netflix even had streaming services. People weren't complaining about caps because of 240p Netflix movies. They were complaining about caps because of the massive amounts of warez and porn we were all downloading. Now people are downloading less and less because the paid options are becoming more reasonable, and subsequently that slack was taken up by Netflix. If someone else comes along and offers true 1080p content with better selection and/or pricing, then they'll be the new kid on the block.

Ultimately, regardless of what happens, ISPs will continue to increase bandwidth because they desire growth and expansion, regardless of Netflix. They've always offered ultra-high-speed packages because there were nutjobs like us willing to shell out 150 bucks a month for 6 meg in 2005. Netflix's existence is largely independent of that. If anything, Netflix owes ISPs for having the capacity in place to allow their service to become as popular as it had. And when Netflix goes, the ISPs will keep going. They will be owed nothing.

If that isn't enough, how about advertisement direct from Verizon themseleves (http://www.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/). Right from their fucking webpage where they list the benefits of the higher packages: "Upload and download in a flash. Plus, play games and stream videos virtually lag-free" and... "The gold standard in computing speeds. Perfect for households that enjoy streaming content on the Internet on multiple devices at the same time."

If Verizon is selling me the self proclaimed "Gold Standard" and specifically references the ability to stream content to multiple devices at the same time, and I can't even get a fucking DVD quality stream to work on ONE device because they don't handle their side of the business to make sure I get the transit capacity I need then I sure as fuck have a right to be pissed. If they can't deliver what they are selling me, why the fuck should I pay them higher rates when their lowest package would provide me the same shitty service?

As I've already said, they've had that same marketing bullshit since before Netflix existed. Hell, the jump from dial-up to 256k was enormous when you were downloading an MP3, and the ISPs advertised that fact. It's been the same exact statements for years, only with the type of media altered as they became available. By the same logic, ISPs should have been putting more "value" on Napster and eDonkey.

And if you ever expected the "gold standard" from any ISP to be anything but flawed, then you appear to have very little experience dealing with them. Granted, it's a form of Stockholm Syndrome. I'm actually at the point where I'm grateful to Charter for not having had any major outages for a few months.

 

[1337m0dd3r]

I have unlimited data a just eat at their data streaming as much as possible just to spite verizon... my goal is at least a gig of data a day.... yay for unlimited and just buying new phones off ebay... eat my shorts verizon.

 

[Ashton]

I'm surprised nobody's used this very simple comparison...

If you buy Xgb of data (lets say your on a 3gb/month cellular plan) and you go over your data limit, dont you expect to pay? That's essentially whats going on with Cogent - except they dont feel like they should pay Verizon for the extra data. (granted it's a lot more complicated than that, but it's a good metaphor)

Also, I'd argue that Netflix isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread to all customers. I for one dont use it and I'd place higher value on services like remote-desktop access. I'm not saying ALL customers feel this way, but likewise not ALL of us wanting better speed/service want it for netflix.

Lastly, I agree with the "there is no true unlimited plan" POV. If you dig through enough reports on whatever "unlimited" deal you find, it's got clauses in it for excessive useage of *some* kind. Granted occasionally these plans are so high they might as well be unlimited (my "unlimited" sprint plan ultimately boils down to 100gb/month, and in my WORST month I used 20, averaging around 2-5, so for my purposes it might as well be unlimited) "unlimited" means "more than average" if you push the limits on any of them you'll pay for it one way or another. (Though, yes, I agree it's false advertising and really should be just listed as what they offer, but if they did that some asshats out there would push it JUST for the sake of doing so and ruin the service for the rest of us. Sometimes a little white lie is safer for the masses than the truth, however inconvenient it may ultimately be)

 

[Serpent]

It has everything to do with it, cities don't have limited space they can build double or triple decker highways. They can always go up if they can't go out.

If there is any fault here it is only in the government not allowing or forcing more competition. But the facts are that Verizon is not making that much money. You claim it goes to CEO compensations, so what that happens in every company its part of the cost of doing business and must be factored into your payment. Tell the CEO you will pay more for unlimited or faster speeds and I promise you he will jump at the opportunity to satisfy his share holders and his own pocket book. But no that is not what is going on here, what is going on is consumers who are just as selfish as the CEO think that they should have unlimited bandwidth, unlimited speeds, and do it all for $25/ mo.

Gov't do expand the roads. They have, near me. In any case, the gov't doesn't raise your tax for that reason. They raise for everything (if they raise) in general and reallocate accordingly.

The thing is here, from what I can tell is that both sides (consumer and netflix) is paying the middle man (verizon) to use their route. The middle man isn't happy that the route is being used so much and they want more money. Change route with delivery service, etc, its still the same thing.

 

[Jorona]

I have unlimited data a just eat at their data streaming as much as possible just to spite verizon... my goal is at least a gig of data a day.... yay for unlimited and just buying new phones off ebay... eat my shorts verizon.

See above...

This is so fucking stupid, this entire issue with Verizon and Netflix has NOTHING TO DO with Net Neutrality. Infact Net Neutrality may make the issue worse. The link between Cogent and Verizon is saturated. Verizon doesn't want to build it out because only 10% on the traffic going through is theirs, the majority is Cogents. Verizon just wants Cogent to stand by their peer agreement and balance the scales abit. The peer agreement calls for a 50/50 split of bandwidth between the two. So as much going one way is going the other way. Cogent is using the majority of the link. Why should Verizon pay to expand that link? It's not their fault that it's saturated.

That brings us to Verizon trying to get Netflix to buy bandwidth from them. This is so they can bypass Cogent. Just have the data go directly from Netflix to Verizon. Cut out the lazy fucks at Cogent completely, and suddenly the bottleneck is gone for Verizon customers trying to watch their videos. No more Cogent fucking up the peer agreement, and happy customers. Sounds like a win-win for Verizon, thus why they are pursuing this avenue.

So what this comes down to isn't that Verizon is handling some data higher then others and horse shit like that. This is a blatant bottleneck cause by the pack of tools at Cogent. The guys are the reason East coast Gamers have had lag and packet loss on west coast servers for YEARS. Most recently it was Comcast and Verizon League of Legends players getting fucked by Cogents inability to handle its bandwidth properly.

So once again, this really isn't Verizons fault. This is COGENT. Unfortunately Verizon is the face of the internet for their subscribers. So they're catching all the flack.

 

[Wierdo]

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-packets-being-dropped-every-day-because-verizon-wants-more-money/

In some cases, Verizon has actually purchased and installed the necessary equipment to upgrade ports, but not turned it on, according to Schaeffer. "They actually put it in, so they spent the money, but they just politically have not been willing to turn it on in order to ensure that Netflix will not work as well as Redbox," he said.

Where the FCC at when this is happening? Until Verizon becomes a common carrier this BS will keep happening and ruining the internet for consumers, it's so sad lately that some people have been mooching off their European friends on Twitch channel streams, how sad is that?

 

[SLee]

Where the FCC at when this is happening? Until Verizon becomes a common carrier this BS will keep happening and ruining the internet for consumers,

Net neutrality and open internet doesn't apply to deals and agreements between backbone providers.

Besides, even if Verizon was split up and UUNET came back into existence, you will still get the same dispute if Cogent was sending more traffic than agreed upon for a peering agreement.

 

[Wierdo]

Net neutrality and open internet doesn't apply to deals and agreements between backbone providers.

Besides, even if Verizon was split up and UUNET came back into existence, you will still get the same dispute if Cogent was sending more traffic than agreed upon for a peering agreement.

I see where you're coming from, but my view on it is a bit different:

The issue is what's good for customers and the internet, it's not Cogent that's driving traffic up, it's Verizon's customers.

Cogent is actually, in a sense, doing Verizon a favor by keeping its customers happy, Verizon might want to do itself a favor by catering to its own customers' needs as well. But of course there's little competition in the market so why would they do that, right?

We'll see how this plays out, but I'm hopeful that the negative PR will force Verizon's hand into begrudgingly doing what's best for the customer base, thereby warding off the potential of a locally Balkanized internet in our future.

Some possibly good news this week as well:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-may-have-gained-direct-connection-to-comcast-network/

 

[SLee]

I see where you're coming from, but my view on it is a bit different:

The issue is what's good for customers and the internet, it's not Cogent that's driving traffic up, it's Verizon's customers.

But they are also customers of Netflix, and Netflix also has a responsibility to get the data back to their customers where it doesn't run into congestion.

Cogent is actually, in a sense, doing Verizon a favor by keeping its customers happy, Verizon might want to do itself a favor by catering to its own customers' needs as well.

But Cogent is deliberately choosing a path into Verizon, that while free for itself, is already congested and a path where Cogent is contractually obligated not to send more than ~1.8x the data it receives back.

Realistically, Cogent is defrauding Netflix by selling bandwidth into Verizon that it doesn't actually have.

 

[NoOther]

But they are also customers of Netflix, and Netflix also has a responsibility to get the data back to their customers where it doesn't run into congestion.


But Cogent is deliberately choosing a path into Verizon, that while free for itself, is already congested and a path where Cogent is contractually obligated not to send more than ~1.8x the data it receives back.

Realistically, Cogent is defrauding Netflix by selling bandwidth into Verizon that it doesn't actually have.

^This, so much this. Cogent is the evil bastard in this scenario. What is really going on is that Cogent low bid to be the provider for Netflix. But Cogent doesn't have the network that other providers do and so they have to use other larger backbones. Netflix has generated so much traffic, that Cogent can't keep up with it and is using far more traffic of other backbones. Those backbones then charge Cogent transit fees. The problem is now Netflix traffic has gotten so large, Cogent can't keep affording to pay those fees. Cogent doesn't want to charge Netflix more and risk losing them as a customer, so they try to force public opinion against the other backbones. Since Verizon is the largest, they choose to take the fight to Verizon. But since Verizon is the largest, they choose to sit back and fight the battle. Cogent is in the wrong, plain and simple. And yet all the masses want to blame Verizon. It's the same mentality that has people blaming wealthy individuals for having money and wanting to make more. It's just plain ludicrous to me. There are rules, follow the rules or change them. Don't be mad at the people that play by the rules and do well.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I'm surprised nobody's used this very simple comparison...

If you buy Xgb of data (lets say your on a 3gb/month cellular plan) and you go over your data limit, dont you expect to pay? That's essentially whats going on with Cogent - except they dont feel like they should pay Verizon for the extra data. (granted it's a lot more complicated than that, but it's a good metaphor)

Yeah, but Cogent isn't Verizon's customer. I am. I pay for my internet access to Verizon in order to reach the internet. The traffic coming to me from Netflix (through Cogent) is MY traffic, and I have already paid for it. There should be no expectation of any compensation from the source of that traffic at all. Verizon is providing its service to me, and I am paying for that service.

Trying to charge Netflix (via Cogent) through some peering agreement very definitely IS double dipping. They are trying to charge for the same traffic twice. It's a scam, and there is no defending it what so ever.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Yeah, but Cogent isn't Verizon's customer. I am. I pay for my internet access to Verizon in order to reach the internet. The traffic coming to me from Netflix (through Cogent) is MY traffic, and I have already paid for it. There should be no expectation of any compensation from the source of that traffic at all. Verizon is providing its service to me, and I am paying for that service.

Trying to charge Netflix (via Cogent) through some peering agreement very definitely IS double dipping. They are trying to charge for the same traffic twice. It's a scam, and there is no defending it what so ever.

To add to this, ANY traffic between my IP and any other IP on the greater internet should be fully covered by what I pay Verizon regardless of it's source or type of traffic.

IMHO, the peering agreement is just an excuse here. Netflix is competing with Verizon's own on demand services and they know it. This is a devious little way for them to try to limit Netflix's usefulness, so that people choose their On Demand services rather than Netflix.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a suit from a anti-competitive practices standpoint over this. Verizon is using their power as an ISP to block out competition to their other services, and that is illegal!

 

[NoOther]

Yeah, but Cogent isn't Verizon's customer. I am. I pay for my internet access to Verizon in order to reach the internet. The traffic coming to me from Netflix (through Cogent) is MY traffic, and I have already paid for it. There should be no expectation of any compensation from the source of that traffic at all. Verizon is providing its service to me, and I am paying for that service.

Trying to charge Netflix (via Cogent) through some peering agreement very definitely IS double dipping. They are trying to charge for the same traffic twice. It's a scam, and there is no defending it what so ever.

They are providing you the service you are paying for. Cogent isn't providing the service they are supposed to. There is no scam, its the way the rules are set up and Cogent doesn't feel like playing by the rules, so they get people like you duped into thinking that Verizon is the one screwing them over.

To add to this, ANY traffic between my IP and any other IP on the greater internet should be fully covered by what I pay Verizon regardless of it's source or type of traffic.

IMHO, the peering agreement is just an excuse here. Netflix is competing with Verizon's own on demand services and they know it. This is a devious little way for them to try to limit Netflix's usefulness, so that people choose their On Demand services rather than Netflix.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a suit from a anti-competitive practices standpoint over this. Verizon is using their power as an ISP to block out competition to their other services, and that is illegal!

Really, so what happens when another network or site can't handle the traffic they get? That is Verizon's fault too? They have to guarantee that other networks can handle all the traffic they send as well? The only deviousness here is Cogent's. They don't want to lose Netflix as their customer and don't want to pay what other ISPs have to pay for transit traffic. They are banking on people like you to force the other backbone's hand so they don't have to pay what they should be paying for hosting Netflix. There are no anti-competitive practices here, and if there were any, it would be Cogent that is getting sued.

 

[BravO)))]

They are providing you the service you are paying for. Cogent isn't providing the service they are supposed to. There is no scam, its the way the rules are set up and Cogent doesn't feel like playing by the rules, so they get people like you duped into thinking that Verizon is the one screwing them over.



Really, so what happens when another network or site can't handle the traffic they get? That is Verizon's fault too? They have to guarantee that other networks can handle all the traffic they send as well? The only deviousness here is Cogent's. They don't want to lose Netflix as their customer and don't want to pay what other ISPs have to pay for transit traffic. They are banking on people like you to force the other backbone's hand so they don't have to pay what they should be paying for hosting Netflix. There are no anti-competitive practices here, and if there were any, it would be Cogent that is getting sued.

Peering agreements on a 50-50 base will have no place on the internet. There is a residential market and a business market that serves a specific purpose. If business A has a streaming or download product, and 50 consumers want said product, the majority of the traffic will flow one way. If you expect consumers to upload the same amount of data to reach a 50-50 agreement... you are sadly mistaken. Now the question is who is responsible for the slow speeds on the physical side? If consumers on verizon are the main ones effected, I would say verizon is to blame. If it were more wide spread, then it would be Cogent. Like I said, 50-50 traffic is not going to happen especially with products like youtube, amazon prime, and netflix.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

This just makes me want to drop Verizon Wireless and go with someone else.

 

[Godmachine]

This just makes me want to drop Verizon Wireless and go with someone else.

Lots of people are doing so. Verizon desperately wants an LTE monopoly and are ditching fiber builds entirely since LTE is much less regulated and they can charge far more for bandwidth and services than they could with wired connections.

I left Verizon phone service years ago , incredibly expensive , horrible customer service and lots of extra "fees" for everything. Which is disappointing because they have the best network in the country.

 

[/usr/sbin]

They are providing you the service you are paying for. Cogent isn't providing the service they are supposed to. There is no scam, its the way the rules are set up and Cogent doesn't feel like playing by the rules, so they get people like you duped into thinking that Verizon is the one screwing them over.

Verizon isn't supplying the service being paid for. Not at all. If I sign up for a service that Verizon themselves lists as being the "Golden Standard" and ideal for streaming to multiple devices simultaneously, but they don't deliver me the bandwidth to do multiple streams, let alone ONE stream then they have a problem.

They are the ISP, I pay them to have a particular data connection. I pay them a monthly fee, it's their responsibility to do what they need to do to deliver on the service they are selling. I really don't care if the dealings they need to make are "hard". As a consumer I don't particularly care what their difficulties are, my only concerns is if they deliver what they promise. If they make 1000% profit, great. If they lose 1000%, I don't really give a crap - they should have done more research on their business model, they are obligated to deliver what they sell, period. They need to man up, take care of business, and deliver the speeds they are selling their customers. No excuses, no BS.

 

[NoOther]

Peering agreements on a 50-50 base will have no place on the internet. There is a residential market and a business market that serves a specific purpose. If business A has a streaming or download product, and 50 consumers want said product, the majority of the traffic will flow one way. If you expect consumers to upload the same amount of data to reach a 50-50 agreement... you are sadly mistaken. Now the question is who is responsible for the slow speeds on the physical side? If consumers on verizon are the main ones effected, I would say verizon is to blame. If it were more wide spread, then it would be Cogent. Like I said, 50-50 traffic is not going to happen especially with products like youtube, amazon prime, and netflix.

I am sorry, but it is you who are sadly mistaken. Sites and services have to pay more money all the time for the amount of traffic to or from their site. They are charged this because of the load on the network. This load isn't just measured by how much traffic is on the hosts network, but how much their ISP then has to pay in transit fees for the traffic they are servicing.

Also peering agreements aren't always 50/50, in the agreements there are usually buffers put into place. Transit agreements come in when one side is grossly over balancing the agreement. That is the whole purpose of the transit agreement, to compensate for the extra equipment the unbalanced side has to provide to help maintain the status quo.

In this case, it is pretty much all Cogent's fault. It doesn't matter that the customers are on "Verizon's side" as you claim, it matters where they are trying to get the traffic from and where it is being sent. Cogent is grossly overbalancing the agreement with the Netflix traffic and thus owes some money to Verizon to compensate. What should happen in this case is Cogent pays Verizon, and tells Netflix that they have to charge them more for hosting their services because of the traffic that Netflix is generating. That is the way the system is setup to work.

Just because customer's may want Netflix traffic, doesn't mean Verizon is obligated to upgrade their networks for free to achieve that. Cogent being the host network for Netflix is obligated to upgrade their networks to cover more of the traffic and/or compensate Verizon to enable Verizon to do it. Also it isn't just Verizon customers that see slow downs in Netflix traffic, AT&T customers sometimes see the same. And Verizon isn't throttling any services, they are just living up to their agreements, other services operate just fine over Verizon networks, gee why do you think that is? Perhaps because those other services are following the rules as set up by their agreements.

 

[NoOther]

Verizon isn't supplying the service being paid for. Not at all. If I sign up for a service that Verizon themselves lists as being the "Golden Standard" and ideal for streaming to multiple devices simultaneously, but they don't deliver me the bandwidth to do multiple streams, let alone ONE stream then they have a problem.

They are the ISP, I pay them to have a particular data connection. I pay them a monthly fee, it's their responsibility to do what they need to do to deliver on the service they are selling. I really don't care if the dealings they need to make are "hard". As a consumer I don't particularly care what their difficulties are, my only concerns is if they deliver what they promise. If they make 1000% profit, great. If they lose 1000%, I don't really give a crap - they should have done more research on their business model, they are obligated to deliver what they sell, period. They need to man up, take care of business, and deliver the speeds they are selling their customers. No excuses, no BS.

I like how you pick one sentence but fail to grasp any of the context of the entire reply I had. Verizon is providing you the bandwidth service. You have your bandwidth which you are paying for. What you are complaining about is bandwidth coming from another network. On your side you have all the bandwidth you can want. However, Verizon is not obligated to guarantee you bandwidth from another provider, that is not at all their responsibility and never has been. They are taking care of business through dealings with Cogent. Cogent is the one that is not taking care of business.

What you mean is as a customer you don't care about the rules and regulations that are in place, you are just a selfish bastard and want what you want regardless of what you agreed to pay for. Basically you want anything and everything for the amount you pay regardless if its in your contract. No excuses, No BS, perhaps that is the way Verizon should deal with you?

 

[InorganicMatter]

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?

This is not at all what's going on.

To correct your example: the big rig guy is actually PAYING for all 10 of the spaces he's taking up, it's just that the apartment complex has sold permits for more spaces than they have. Since the complex doesn't have a big enough lot for everyone with permits to park all at once, they want the big rig to help them pay to expand their parking lot.

 

[/usr/sbin]

I like how you pick one sentence but fail to grasp any of the context of the entire reply I had. Verizon is providing you the bandwidth service. You have your bandwidth which you are paying for. What you are complaining about is bandwidth coming from another network. On your side you have all the bandwidth you can want. However, Verizon is not obligated to guarantee you bandwidth from another provider, that is not at all their responsibility and never has been. They are taking care of business through dealings with Cogent. Cogent is the one that is not taking care of business.

What you mean is as a customer you don't care about the rules and regulations that are in place, you are just a selfish bastard and want what you want regardless of what you agreed to pay for. Basically you want anything and everything for the amount you pay regardless if its in your contract. No excuses, No BS, perhaps that is the way Verizon should deal with you?

http://www.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/

Right from their fucking webpage where they list the benefits of the higher packages: "Upload and download in a flash. Plus, play games and stream videos virtually lag-free" and... "The gold standard in computing speeds. Perfect for households that enjoy streaming content on the Internet on multiple devices at the same time."

It's pretty reasonable to expect they deliver the ability to stream content, since they are you know... explicitly stating that as one of the things their service does well.

 

[NoOther]

This is not at all what's going on.

To correct your example: the big rig guy is actually PAYING for all 10 of the spaces he's taking up, it's just that the apartment complex has sold permits for more spaces than they have. Since the complex doesn't have a big enough lot for everyone with permits to park all at once, they want the big rig to help them pay to expand their parking lot.

Incorrect. Cogent is not paying for all the traffic they are taking up, that is the crux of the issue at hand. Cogent refuses to pay anything at all for the bandwidth they are taking up. There are a limited amount of "parking spots", in this case bandwidth, that were already agreed upon between Verizon and Cogent. Cogent is far exceeding that already agreed upon amount. So no, your example is not correct there.

 

[NoOther]

http://www.verizon.com/home/fios-fastest-internet/

Right from their fucking webpage where they list the benefits of the higher packages: "Upload and download in a flash. Plus, play games and stream videos virtually lag-free" and... "The gold standard in computing speeds. Perfect for households that enjoy streaming content on the Internet on multiple devices at the same time."

It's pretty reasonable to expect they deliver the ability to stream content, since they are you know... explicitly stating that as one of the things their service does well.

And? They do exactly what they say. They provide you ample bandwidth to download and stream content. Your argument about whether or not you can get the full amount from Netflix does not at all contradict what they claim. The problem is that Cogent is not abiding by the rules. Again your problem should be with Cogent, not with Verizon, you have misplaced anger here.