dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
10
McBane
join:2008-08-22
Wylie, TX

4 edits

McBane to Geot

Member

to Geot

Re: Verizon's supposed response on a netflix question

Who needs Verizon FiOS when they can't even play the peer game properly? On almost every other backbone peering agreement the one who is requesting the traffic is who usually ends up paying for it or gets the break for it. Not with Verizon though. Why should Cogent PAY Verizon who is the one REQUESTING COGENT BANDWIDTH? We have all the fiber last mile bandwidth and a 3rd rate backbone that can't even support it because it's trying to double dip all of it's peering agreements now because they don't want to pony up on their peering agreements to actually support their backbone. Verizon has actually gone beyond asking for FREE bandwidth, they're actually asking Cogent to PAY THEM for COGENTS SERVICE and product.

Can you imagine going to Wal-Mart and demanding they pay you for their products?

That's what Verizon does though, it's become their SOP. Just ask Frontier/FairPoint Communications. They're starting to figure out that the other Tier 1s are not going to play their game though, and FiOS is suffering because of it.

It wasn't always like this.

Thinkdiff
MVM,
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY

1 recommendation

Thinkdiff

MVM,

said by McBane:

On almost every other backbone peering agreement the one who is requesting the traffic is who usually ends up paying for it or gets the break for it.

Do you have any proof for this? I'm genuinely asking because the argument makes some sense to me, but as far as I can tell, it was never done as you suggest. It's always the sender on the hook for paying. In this case, the sender is Cogent.

If you look back to the Level3 conflicts a few years ago, they were complaining that Cogent was sending too much data onto the L3 network without paying, which sounds a whole like what Verizon is claiming, too:
»www.prnewswire.com/news- ··· 572.html
McBane
join:2008-08-22
Wylie, TX

4 edits

McBane

Member

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering
quote:
Sell transit (or Internet access) service to that network (making them a 'customer')
Cogent is the one selling Verizon transit to Netflix here. The one with the content to sell has the higher bargaining chip. Customers can just go to another provider if their service is sub-par and they can't get the content they want in a reliable manner. Netflix knows this. Cogent knows this. Google/Youtube knows this. ESPN knows this. Verizon is demanding that Netflix and all the above need to pay for transit to Verizon customers. (Which goes against established peering principles). Verizon is essentially holding us hostage for more favorable peering agreements and demanding money where it isn't due. They're hoping their superior network will keep us from leaving. Same thing you see with cable channels and companies but Verizon is taking it to the extreme. If you don't get the channels you want on cable, you'll go to DISH or wherever else you have access to the channels you want.

Thinkdiff
MVM,
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY

1 edit

1 recommendation

Thinkdiff

MVM,

said by McBane:

Verizon is demanding that Netflix and all the above need to pay for transit to Verizon customers.

AFAIK, Verizon never said this, yet it keeps coming up in this thread. They are asking Cogent to pay for asymmetrical data usage, just as L3 did in the press release I linked to.

Cogent is charging Netflix for transit onto "the Internet". It's Cogent's responsibility to transport the data to other networks. I still can't find a case where a tier 1 or tier 2 provider with settlement-free peering was paying the sending network for excess incoming data.

Edit: Hrm.. I guess I could understand the argument if Cogent is considered a transit ISP between Verizon and Netflix - in that case, it would make sense that both Verizon and Netflix pay Cogent. However, I don't think this is the case as Cogent tries to act like a Tier 1 provider.
McBane
join:2008-08-22
Wylie, TX

McBane

Member

Same reason cable channels don't pay cable companies for access to their networks. It works vice versa. It's the same case here and why should they? If Verizon Netflix customers can't get what they want they can either pound sand or get a new ISP if Verizon refuses to fix it.

Thinkdiff
MVM,
join:2001-08-07
Bronx, NY

1 recommendation

Thinkdiff

MVM,

The analogies you keep bringing up really don't reinforce your argument because they are way too simplistic or just completely different.

If you want the Internet to work like Cable TV where we pay to access a certain set of 1-way content, then your analogy makes sense. But that's not how the Internet works and that's why peering agreements aren't written that way. Same thing with the Walmart analogy earlier - irrelevant to this discussion.

If you really want to go with your Cable TV argument, the closest thing would be two providers offering the same exact channels, but on service A you can only watch channel 10 from 4AM to 5PM. I agree from the end user perspective, it doesn't matter who is creating that problem - but it doesn't necessarily mean its a "service A" problem.