dslreports logo
 story category
Verizon Gets More Specific On Cogent, Netflix Issues
ISP Points the Finger Right Back at Cogent...

Reports earlier this week emerged claiming that Verizon was intentionally letting their peering points with Cogent saturate, resulting in Netflix performance issues for many Verizon DSL and FiOS customers. Initially, Verizon issued some generic quotes responding to Cogent's claims, simply praising Verizon's overall network performance. Then speculation began to arise that Verizon was letting Netflix performance take a hit for the benefit of their own new streaming video service in conjunction with RedBox. That last bit appears to have prompted Verizon to get a little more specific.

In a blog post, Verizon offered up this explanation for their apparent feud with Cogent:
quote:
What the article doesn’t say, however, is that Cogent is not compliant with one of the basic and long-standing requirements for most settlement-free peering arrangements: that traffic between the providers be roughly in balance. When the traffic loads are not symmetric, the provider with the heavier load typically pays the other for transit (see our ex parte filing (PDF) from the 2010 Comcast/Level 3 spat for more info on peering and transit agreements). This isn’t a story about Netflix, or about Verizon “letting” anybody’s traffic deteriorate. This is a fairly boring story about a bandwidth provider that is unhappy that they are out of balance and will have to make alternative arrangements for capacity enhancements, just like any other interconnecting ISP.
Whose at fault can of course become very murky, given you'd need deep access to network data to discern fault. While we've seen peering disputes for years (with Cogent often a starring player), with ISPs having a greater and greater interest in ensuring their traffic and content sees priority, they've taken a decidedly greater focus on trying to get companies everywhere to pay more, often resulting in network neutrality scuff ups like Comcast's 2010 fight with Level3.
view:
topics flat nest 
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

Dough Re Me

This isn't about technology it's about Cogent getting paid by Netflix to provide SLA. The alternative is Verizon joins the Netflix CDN (problem solved), but those pesky VBS guys want to get paid on it.

Look if you look at Verizon's balance sheet, outside of the spectacular margins that wireless has, the wireline business is marginally plodding along except for business services and since VZ owns Terremark they want to own that juicy business. I can't think of a better way of making money than to transit within your own network (for free) and charge Netflix for the privilege to do so.

Of course the bandwidth is going to be asymmetrical, Netflix is 33% of all network traffic, so Verizon either wants a piece here or more likely the even more profitable VBS services.

Like I said Redbox 100% is nestled in VBS networks so there are no problems there of course.

These guys should get on the business of providing the pipe and shutting up. The utility model suits them much better, let innovation happen on top of the pipe. I know you want a piece of that but I cant recall a time EVER that Verizon put out a quality piece of software and actually maintained it... VZ navigator was decent but for $10 a month it should have wiped your a$$...

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Dough Re Me

I wouldn't let Cogent off the hook so easily while blaming VBS. In these peering disputes Cogent is almost always the offending partner. They are the Darth Vader of backbone providers. If any fault needs to be applied in this peering negotiation, look to Cogent.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

5 recommendations

SpaethCo to elefante72

MVM

to elefante72
said by elefante72:

This isn't about technology it's about Cogent getting paid by Netflix to provide SLA. The alternative is Verizon joins the Netflix CDN (problem solved), but those pesky VBS guys want to get paid on it.

That's not the only alternative -- Netflix could also deliver their content via Level(3), GTT/nLayer/Intelliquent, PCCW/BTN, CenturyLink, Sprint, ATT, NTT/Verio, Atrato, Telia, DTAG, etc.

There are a wide variety of options to reach VZ customers -- the other carriers work within their peering agreements to ensure capacity is maintained even if compensation is required due to asymmetrical ratios.

Cogent sells below market rate for transit to win business in the marketplace, and then when it comes time to actually deliver those bits they cry that the big bad carriers aren't playing fair because they won't take unlimited amounts of their traffic for free.

As David See Profile pointed out in another thread, they've engaged in this practice numerous times over the years: »Re: Is Level3 different than any other website?

To blame VZ for this problem is utterly ridiculous

MovieLover76
join:2009-09-11
Cherry Hill, NJ

MovieLover76

Member

Re: Dough Re Me

Agreed,
If the peering isn't equal, Cogent should pay up.
Problem solved.

I'd like Verizon to become a netflix affiliate so I can get superHD, but that is an entirely different issue.
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home

smcallah

Member

Re: Dough Re Me

Why should Cogent pay up more if Verizon was so careless in signing up so many customers that use Netflix?

Cogent only sends the traffic because Verizon's customers asked for it. If they didn't, Cogent would send no Netflix traffic towards Verizon.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Dough Re Me

said by smcallah:

Why should Cogent pay up more if Verizon was so careless in signing up so many customers that use Netflix?

The counter argument is this:

You're giving Netflix your hard-earned dollars: Netflix also has a contract with Level(3), and Level(3) currently has capacity to deliver traffic to Verizon without contention. So why isn't Netflix using that path to send VZ customers content?

There are multiple paths to Verizon's network, and Netflix is intentionally loading up on the worst path available.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to MovieLover76

Premium Member

to MovieLover76
If Verizon would simply CDN Netflix, this problem would be over.

They won't, because they don't want to help Netflix succeed when they have plans to compete in that space. Now they expect Cogent to pay up as well, also profiting from not making a normal, expected business move that any business wanting to serve their actual customers demand would do. They want to own their customers, not merely serve them.

CDN with Netflix, problem solved. So yes, the traffic is asymmetric, but it's a problem CREATED by Verizon, not Cogent.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
To solely blame Cogent for this problem is utterly ridiculous. There's a share of blame between both carriers.

There is nothing stopping Verizon from peering directly with Netflix to not only solve performance concerns, but to also offer their customers the ability to receive enhanced Netflix features (e.g. SuperHD). Netflix peers directly at a number of sites around the US, all of which should be within an inexpensive reach for Verizon.

The whole ratio argument is a bit outdated IMHO. Just another excuse for the larger carriers to justify an outdated business model. A lot of double-dipping going on.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Dough Re Me

said by BlueC:

To solely blame Cogent for this problem is utterly ridiculous. There's a share of blame between both carriers.

There really isn't.
said by BlueC:

There is nothing stopping Verizon from peering directly with Netflix to not only solve performance concerns, but to also offer their customers the ability to receive enhanced Netflix features (e.g. SuperHD).

This sounds awesome! My employer is an enterprise customer of many carriers, including Verizon. Since we operate our own network and we advertise our own prefixes in multiple regional locations, Verizon should peer with us because their customers are requesting access to our network to access our portals to view/submit their medical claims. Clearly that means we should be getting that connectivity for free. Afterall, our costs of operating network infrastructure in a handful of regional locations is clearly the same as the national footprint that VZ is maintaining, right?

That's where this breaks down. The peering traffic exchange that is being contested is happening within maybe ~500 meters in most cases. You have Netflix with content networks in Equinix/CoreSite/Internap/Telx/whatever carrier hotels, they buy transit from carriers within those facilities (Cogent in this case), and Cogent peers with VZ in those same facilities. So Netflix sends the traffic to one port on a Cogent switch, and in most cases Cogent sends the traffic to Verizon from another port on that same switch. From there, Verizon then carries the bits all over the nation to their customer base. Cogent collects money from Netflix for moving the bits a couple hundred meters, and dumps the traffic on VZ using settlement-free connections because they are "peers."

National transport has vastly different cost implications than simply ingesting and puking traffic out different ports on the same switch.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

Re: Dough Re Me

said by SpaethCo:

This sounds awesome! My employer is an enterprise customer of many carriers, including Verizon. Since we operate our own network and we advertise our own prefixes in multiple regional locations, Verizon should peer with us because their customers are requesting access to our network to access our portals to view/submit their medical claims. Clearly that means we should be getting that connectivity for free. Afterall, our costs of operating network infrastructure in a handful of regional locations is clearly the same as the national footprint that VZ is maintaining, right?

Verizon collects revenue from their customers requesting traffic from Netflix, which Netflix collected revenue from those same customers, all while Verizon expects to gain more revenue in the process. Does that sound right?

Peering between Verizon and Netflix would not necessarily entail transit services. It would be traffic solely between the two networks. Verizon has customers (that they collect revenue from) that benefit, Netflix has customers (that they collect revenue from) that benefit. Who exactly pays for the peering in this case?

If you honestly believe Verizon is entitled to more revenue from Netflix just to peer, you're basically outlining that Verizon doesn't collect proper revenue from their existing customers to support their infrastructure.

I will agree with you on criticizing Cogent's strategy in the eyes of Verizon, Cogent is collecting revenue just to dump traffic on a settlement-free peering arrangement.

I'm talking about the big picture here. Verizon's customers couldn't care less about the VZ/Cogent peering arrangement. Their customers want proper Netflix performance and Verizon could solve this simply by peering with Netflix directly. Instead they choose to play games with other carriers. That's their choice, and it reflects on their customer's satisfaction.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: Dough Re Me

said by BlueC:

Verizon collects revenue from their customers requesting traffic from Netflix, which Netflix collected revenue from those same customers, all while Verizon expects to gain more revenue in the process. Does that sound right?

Sort of -- Verizon subscribers pay money to connect to Verizon's network. If I'm a Verizon subscriber, and I give money to another Verizon subscriber for their services, does that mean that the other subscriber should get their connection from Verizon for free?
said by BlueC:

Peering between Verizon and Netflix would not necessarily entail transit services. It would be traffic solely between the two networks. Verizon has customers (that they collect revenue from) that benefit, Netflix has customers (that they collect revenue from) that benefit. Who exactly pays for the peering in this case?

I think we need to stop calling it peering. When networks peer, the customers of network A gain connectivity to the customers of network B. In this case, we're talking about a network connecting directly to an entity that would normally be considered a customer -- nothing else comes across that connection except traffic from Netflix. For every other company in the world, if you are a customer entity connecting to a network for reachability to other customers, you pay for the connection.

Settlement-free peering only works when network A is a large geographically spread network, network B is a large geographically spread network, and you engage in interconnection because if you billed each other for transmitting bits into each other's network the costs would be roughly equal. The idea arose because network operators have huge traffic volumes and it didn't make sense to cut 7-8 figure checks in roughly equal amounts between carriers every month.
said by BlueC:

If you honestly believe Verizon is entitled to more revenue from Netflix just to peer, you're basically outlining that Verizon doesn't collect proper revenue from their existing customers to support their infrastructure.

Verizon charges their customers to transport bits between them. They are not collecting proper revenue if they only charge some of their customers and not others.
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN

BlueC

Member

Re: Dough Re Me

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I see it differently when it comes to Netflix. A lot of you guys keep bringing up other "enterprise" customers as a comparison example. I don't see Netflix as your average transit customer, nor do I see them as your typical enterprise customer.

If Netflix is spending money to expand their reach to major IXPs, I don't view them so much as a transit customer anymore. They're acting more as a carrier. It's not like Netflix is requesting full routes to Verizon's network. They just want to reach their customers with a direct path, the same customers that already pay Verizon for internet access. The data will flow through Verizon's network regardless if they choose to peer or not, it will simply affect the quality, which has clearly already happened.

To say Verizon is entitled to revenue to peer with Netflix, is an aged and flawed way of looking at things (especially when taking into consideration the big picture of things), from my prospective.
quote:
Verizon charges their customers to transport bits between them. They are not collecting proper revenue if they only charge some of their customers and not others.
I'm not sure why you are comparing Netflix peering to a Verizon customer paying for DIA. These are two very different things IMO.
GLX
join:2000-01-18
Hoboken, NJ

GLX to SpaethCo

Member

to SpaethCo
said by SpaethCo:

said by elefante72:

This isn't about technology it's about Cogent getting paid by Netflix to provide SLA. The alternative is Verizon joins the Netflix CDN (problem solved), but those pesky VBS guys want to get paid on it.

That's not the only alternative -- Netflix could also deliver their content via Level(3), GTT/nLayer/Intelliquent, PCCW/BTN, CenturyLink, Sprint, ATT, NTT/Verio, Atrato, Telia, DTAG, etc.

There are a wide variety of options to reach VZ customers -- the other carriers work within their peering agreements to ensure capacity is maintained even if compensation is required due to asymmetrical ratios.

They buy from more than Cogent. Cogent is the only one who's willing to talk publicly about it, but everyone is suffering the same problem with Verizon.

Kudos to Cogent for talking publicly about it.
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Cambridge, MA

devnuller

Member

Re: Dough Re Me

said by GLX:

They buy from more than Cogent. Cogent is the only one who's willing to talk publicly about it, but everyone is suffering the same problem with Verizon.

Kudos to Cogent for talking publicly about it.

Not sure I would put my praise behind Cogent. They are the poster child for causing peering disputes.

They seem to be buying transit from only a few per access network (Cogent being a primary player) and given the traffic is probably 20X the size of Cogent, running these smaller networks to 100% is going to causing friction and disruption.

Is this the right way to build the biggest video CDN on the Internet? It worked better before and they should take lessons from other major CDNs on how to operate.

David
Premium Member
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL

David to SpaethCo

Premium Member

to SpaethCo
+1 for my hypothetical coming true... thanks for that! I can't stop laughing over here right now. It smelled like a cogent screw up when the dispute originally started. I knew cogent wasn't going to be able to ride that one trick pony forever.

From my own post

P.S. Another Hypothetical Small Thought- Had Netflix decided to connect with Cogent, the internet wouldn't have believed Cogent at all, only because they have such a rich history in peering problems. If Cogent had problems peering with comcast we would have all just thought it was another "notch" on Cogent's belt of peer problems!

2010-12-02 19:29:40

That was just F'in hilarious! I do have force like powers!

telcodad
MVM
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ

telcodad

MVM

Faster Access Comes at a Price

An article from the Wall Street Journal:

For Web Firms, Faster Access Comes at a Price
By Shalini Ramachandran and Drew Fitzgerald, The Wall Street Journal - June 19, 2013
»online.wsj.com/article/S ··· 666.html
telcodad

telcodad

MVM

Playing the Blame Game

An article about this on the Multichannel News site now:

Verizon, Cogent Engage in Peering Spat
Companies Play the Blame Game Over Allegations that Verizon is Degrading the Performance of Netflix Streams

By Jeff Baumgartner, Multichannel News - June 20, 2013
»www.multichannel.com/dis ··· t/144025

F100
join:2013-01-15
Durham, NC
Alcatel-Lucent G-010G-A
(Software) pfSense
Pace 5268AC

F100

Member

They need more outbound

Since it looks like Verizon needs more outbound traffic on Cogent's network, they should just let users like houkouonchi upload all they want, route it through Cogent, and quit writing them letters about using too much data. houkouonchi and others would actually be helping Verizon balance their peering agreement. Even if Cogent's route was not the fastest, I'm sure a little extra ping time would be worth it to not get nasty letters from Verizon and still get to take advantage of the network.

Rather, Verizon just wants others to pay them to host stuff so they can send more traffic out though Cogent. So on second thought, they would never let that happen.
McBane
join:2008-08-22
Wylie, TX

McBane

Member

Re: They need more outbound

I'd hate for Verizon to route me through a worse route, especially Cogent... They have their own tier 1 for a reason.

Verizon just needs to bring more content on their backbone, create their own CDN and get some content to serve that people want to watch or use. I don't think it would be hard for them to do as one of the world's largest tier 1s, then they can rake in the cash.

Execs don't think like NetEng's though.

spenster
join:2001-04-03
Houston, TX

spenster

Member

When the traffic loads are not symmetric?

Is it just me or is there a fundamental flaw in that way of thinking? Streaming video or no streaming video, the bottom line is that if you're network is receiving more traffic that its sending, it simply means you have less content on your network that is wanted by others than you want are wanting from them. Isn't it a bit hypocritical as well to expect symmetrical bandwidth usage with peer networks when your own subscribers aren't even given symmetrical connections as well? Where is this traffic going to be served from...? Your own content on your servers rather than your subscribers? Oh, wait... If you're going to be serving that content you're going to be expecting to get paid for that content right? Sounds a bit like double dipping doesn't it?

This isn't unique to just Verizon, many providers obviously buy into this model. They just need to own up to what this really is.... Greed.
FactChecker
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03

1 edit

2 recommendations

FactChecker

Premium Member

Re: When the traffic loads are not symmetric?

Think of it as balance of trade. We trade a resource and when you use more of my resource than I use of yours the relationship cost me more than it cost you. In Level3's own words (before this position no longer helped them)

"For example, Cogent was sending far more traffic to the Level 3 network than Level 3 was sending to Cogent's network. It is important to keep in mind that traffic received by Level 3 in a peering relationship must be moved across Level 3's network at considerable expense. Simply put, this means that, without paying, Cogent was using far more of Level 3's network, far more of the time, than the reverse. Following our review, we decided that it was unfair for us to be subsidizing Cogent's business."

Greed is an easy word to throw around, but it is a two way street. Isn't it greedy to borrow all my tools and only have a screw driver yourself or for me to say, how about you investing in the sharing relationship neighbor?

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

battleop to spenster

Member

to spenster
"hypocritical as well to expect symmetrical bandwidth usage with peer networks when your own subscribers aren't even given symmetrical connections as well? "

No because their customers are not entering into settlement free peering agreements with them. That arrangement is between Cogent and Verizon. Settlement free agreements that Company A is going to send 10G of traffic to Company B and Company B is going to send 10Gb to Company A. The dispute comes about when Company A starts to send 100G to Company B but Company B is only sending 10G back to A.

Netflix is irrelevant to the argument at hand. It's about the exchange of traffic.

Probitas
@teksavvy.com

Probitas

Anon

Re: When the traffic loads are not symmetric?

If a company has determined a cost to carry traffic based on the subscriber (residential or business), they provide that service, and that's it. This whole balancing thing seems a bit bizarre. As if the lines cost more to maintain due to traffic. Fibre and copper wires, and wireless setups, do not increase in price after the fact once placed, it's just maintenance, which is also normally a fixed expense unless you are just pouring money into shareholders at the expense of maintenance, which some companies admittedly do, which is their own fault due to a poor business model.
tanzam75
join:2012-07-19

tanzam75

Member

Re: When the traffic loads are not symmetric?

said by Probitas :

whole balancing thing seems a bit bizarre. As if the lines cost more to maintain due to traffic.

Not bizarre at all, because they do cost more.

The marginal cost of bandwidth is only free up until the capacity of the connection. Cogent has maxed out its connection with Verizon. To increase it any further would require Verizon to pay for more lines, more routers, more rack space.

Hot-potato routing inflicts the costs of transit primarily on the recipient. Thus, payment has always gone in one direction -- from the sender to the recipient. When traffic is balanced, the two payments cancel out -- thus enabling settlement-free routing. When traffic is imbalanced, the sender has to pay.
Bengie25
join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI

Bengie25

Member

Re: When the traffic loads are not symmetric?

It's not the "sender pays", it's whomever has less leverage pays.
Bandwidth ratios are consider a "bad" way to measure value as all peering is valuable to both sides.

Typically, peering is paid for when you're unloading lots of transit traffic. In this case, the traffic is not transit as it is destined to Verizon.

Typically the ISP would agree to upgrading the peering links as it is beneficial to their customers and the customers have already paid for that bandwidth, but if Cogent is doing 'Hot Potato' routing, then Verizon would be left routing lots of data over a needlessly large amount of their own network.

If this is the case, then Cogent needs to peer the data at more points and Verizon would be correct in rejecting upgrading that one port. But if Verizon is completely rejecting to upgrade any ports or refusing to peer at more points, then it's Verizon being greedy.
BillyJoeJim
join:2003-07-23
Moline, IL

1 edit

BillyJoeJim to spenster

Member

to spenster
This is one of the problems with the historical method of determining benefit in settlement-free peering. The idea Verizon is using is that if the inbound and outbound traffic is roughly the same, then both parties must be benefiting equally, so neither should pay each other. But Verizon is receiving alot more traffic in this case then they are sending Cogent, so they feel Cogent is benefiting more from the arrangement.

I think the reality of the situation though is that even with unbalanced traffic, both parties are likely benefiting equally. Cogent has the content, Verizon has the eyeballs (end users). So even though the traffic is all flowing outbound from Cogent, it's a mutally beneficial relationship.

In the end, I'm guessing Cogent will "win" this just like they have pretty much every other time in the past. The end result as many other ISPs that have gotten into peering disputes with Cogent have found is that this hurts the eyeball network (Verizon) way more than it hurts Cogent. End-users aren't sympathetic to why their Netflix is slow, they just know that it is. Cogent customers on the other hand pretty much expect these types of issues at this point, as a trade-off for the dirt cheap pricing Cogent offers, and they work around them.

So in the end, what will likely happen is that Verizon will feel the pain from their end users complaining more than Cogent will feel the pain of their content providers complaining and the problem will get "magically" fixed.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 edit

silbaco

Premium Member

Cogent

Cogent has a crappy network anyway. My latency is under 10ms on my ISP's network and once it crosses cogent it soars. And my ISP is not letting ports get congested like Verizon is. Glad I have never had to do business with them directly.

Cogent is just a nuisance in every regard. I think Verizon is going to win this one though. They have more leverage than Cogent does.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned)

Member

Re: Cogent

said by silbaco:

And my ISP is not letting ports get congested

Lies.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Cogent

Really? Please explain to me how you know such things.

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
No one signs up for FiOS in order to get to the Verizon network. They're called an "ISP" for a reason: we want Internet access. Verizon seems to be ignoring this fact of its own existence.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Cogent

How do you not have access to the Internet with FiOS service? Netflix is a big boy company. It chose to place its eggs in the Cogent basket, which any sane person can easily learn in a fairly quick manner, is not a premier provider of bandwidth. This really appears to be a case of, 'you get what you pay for'.

••••••

jseymour
join:2009-12-11
Waterford, MI

jseymour

Member

Slippery Argument

I suspect Verizon is trying to pull a fast one, here. I'll have to check with my (I)SP NOC buddies, but it has always been my understanding that peering arrangements between (I)SPs were made to improve network efficiency for the benefit of each (I)SP's customers, and to reduce data carrier costs. (Direct peering arrangements save them the cost of paying for transit via third parties, such as the MAEs.)

Verizon's peering arrangement with Cogent satisfies both the above goals. IMO what this is really about is Verizon trying to find another way to hobble a service (Netflix) that competes with something it offers.

Jim

GlennLouEarl
3 brothers, 1 gone
Premium Member
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA

GlennLouEarl

Premium Member

Shame on Cogent!

...for delivering all of that pesky traffic requested by Verizon's customers!!! (to Verizon's network anyway)

••••••••••
masterbinky
join:2011-01-06
Carlsbad, NM

masterbinky

Member

Nice Try....

Verizon, It is YOUR customer's requesting the data onto your network.

I have two Ideas, one is that Netflix fix this imbalance and have the Netflix Clients flood end user's upstream data back toward Netflix. Although because most of Verizon's connections to their end user are not symetrical, the amount of data won't perfectly balance out, but Verizon is responsible for that not Cogent. If that's what Verizon wants is to see similar data trade, I'd love to see it implimented.

My other thought is,

If Verizon wants to charge Cogent for sending more data than they recieve, even if that is because it at Verizon's request (because it is Verizon who requests it for Verizon's Customers) then I want to be able to charge Verizon for sending me more data than I send Verizon.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Nice Try....

Except this is about an inter-ISP dispute. It's not an intra-ISP dispute amongst customers.
McBane
join:2008-08-22
Wylie, TX

McBane

Member

My Netflix is fine, my Youtube however is horrible...

I'd say 95% of the time my Netflix streams with no issues on my FiOS. Youtube however is probably down 95% of the time I want to watch it over the past year.