Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pretty much everything you just said there is incorrect. Read through the thread where it is explained in more depth.
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?
So why can't Cognet and VZ get this sorted our to their customers can be happy and not complain about service?
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.
This is off the point, which was your ass backwards rendition of what is going on in conversation form is ass backwards.
So why can't Cognet and VZ get this sorted our to their customers can be happy and not complain about service?
How can they legally ask a company to give them money for their intended use?
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.
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.
Definitely true. If people are watching videos on Netflix, that means they aren't watching cat videos on Youtube.
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.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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, not private property. The taxpayer subsidized infrastructure that these giant corporations are using....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And Verizon delivers you that bandwidth. So what is your point?
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.
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.
Double digit margins 2013.
Profits up 40%
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.
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.