Indeed it is a pickle. Though I question the part of not being able to afford the peering charges. That's their core business, and as such, they need to invest in R&D as much as possible to figure the problem out.

The problem is 1/3 of all traffic during prime time is coming form on source Netflix. I know Verizon's subscribers pay for the connection but why should most pay for the few?

---

Your ISP should offer a 'light user' plan

I'm not a light user, I'm also not a bandwidth hog. What you are going to get is pay by the byte. Electricity is sold by the KWH so why not bandwidth by the byte?

We already pay by the bit. I pay more for my Comcast Blast! than most people with basic services.

Don't mess with the ISPs you can't win short of confiscating the network

Consumers would win if there were more competition, driving prices down per bit. Instead, many areas have only one choice of ISP and therefore no choice. The ISPs can set whatever price they want to since they are a defacto monopoly in those areas. Other ISPs have seen the benefit of this situation and have agreed to only build out in certain areas, avoiding competition with each other.

Consumers would win if there were more competition, driving prices down per bit. Instead, many areas have only one choice of ISP and therefore no choice.

I know the arguments well; the only answer is a national "dumb pipe". We had that at one time. How would you bring that back?

---

OZZ Oh Great and Wonderful said:

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing, though I do find it interesting that people with conservative views will frame it in such a way.

The DEM/Libs will be Our Savior for this 'Bufferin' Problem. With 'Their' Base CataWallin' 'bout dere 'Catnection', The DEMmies will Get 'er Done.

You Know, 'it's' All 'Bout Dat EdumaCATion Thang. Gots to keep The KitDies COnected fO dat Learnin' STuff.

Got Catnection Problems?

p.s. Again I THANK YOU fO SubCatdizing My HOG Ways on da Intercat.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Indeed it is a pickle. Though I question the part of not being able to afford the peering charges. That's their core business, and as such, they need to invest in R&D as much as possible to figure the problem out.

The problem is 1/3 of all traffic during prime time is coming form on source Netflix. I know Verizon's subscribers pay for the connection but why should most pay for the few?

Three words: return on investment. A better infrastructure will benefit everyone in the future.

Consumers would win if there were more competition, driving prices down per bit. Instead, many areas have only one choice of ISP and therefore no choice.

I know the arguments well; the only answer is a national "dumb pipe". We had that at one time. How would you bring that back?

I don't think it's the only answer. I think the alternative answer is to somehow stop ISPs from monopolizing certain geographical locations. I think we start by drawing a line with all traffic being equal and not allowing ISPs to double-dip.

I don't think it's the only answer. I think the alternative answer is to somehow stop ISPs from monopolizing certain geographical locations. I think we start by drawing a line with all traffic being equal and not allowing ISPs to double-dip.

Have no fear, Google is here.

Is that evil spirit? No it is balloon;

---

This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing, though I do find it interesting that people with conservative views will frame it in such a way.

The DEM/Libs will be Our Savior for this 'Bufferin' Problem. With 'Their' Base CataWallin' 'bout dere 'Catnection', The DEMmies will Get 'er Done.

Excellent point, both sides would tout a perceived win if given a chance. I don't really care which side touts what, so long as ISPs are not allowed to double-dip and all traffic is treated the same.

p.s. Again I THANK YOU fO SubCatdizing My HOG Ways on da Intercat.

You're very welcome. I've also subsidized your current computer's horsepower by buying top end (read: expensive) computer parts for the better part of 3 decades. Those top end parts usually pay for most of the R&D and pave the way for future generations of chips.

I don't think it's the only answer. I think the alternative answer is to somehow stop ISPs from monopolizing certain geographical locations. I think we start by drawing a line with all traffic being equal and not allowing ISPs to double-dip.

Have no fear, Google is here.

It is balloon;

Lol! Gotta give them points for creativity.

I was just on DSL reports a site for broadband geeks from all sides in the business. Don't let the name DSL fool you; when the site was setup DSL was cutting edge. Anyway if you want to get an idea of how complicated this is with he said she said take a look at the thread about the Verizon Netflix blame game. Verizon: Our Review Shows No Congestion; Netflix to Blame.

DSL Reports is an excellent site.
I have been on it for years.
If you want unvarnished truth.....you can find it there.

Agreed... however, even the DSL Reports site is saying the same thing my link to ArsTechnica was saying: Verizon says it's not their network that's the problem, everyone else questions the truthiness of their claim.

It all depends on where Verizon says their network ends.

I'm guessing they assume it ends at the jack on the back of their router at the peering collocation. Everyone else assumes it ends at the jack of the router they are peering with. So that cable between Verizon and ??? isn't Verizon's in their mind, and everyone else thinks it is. And we have located the congestion.

I think that's an excellent point, Gary. However, it seems that Verizon and Comcast think that making Netflix pay for faster access to their customers is an acceptable form of business when it is not.

If Verizon says their network ends at the jack on the back of their router, and that choke point is over-saturated with packets to their customers, then they need to look into opening up that choke point. ISPs are already charging their customers more per bit than most other countries. They should use that capital to invest in their networks.

Most ISP's, final mile, are at least a decade behind in their need to expand capacity. Verizon stopped installing FIOS into new areas. They found out their customers actually would use that increased capacity 24/7. That wasn't part of their business plan and they can't afford the peering charges. At the same time they got into a pissing match with other ISP's about how fast the connection was. Damn stupidity on the part of the marketing department. Now the legal department has to pull their butt out of the fire.

Indeed it is a pickle. Though I question the part of not being able to afford the peering charges. That's their core business, and as such, they need to invest in R&D as much as possible to figure the problem out.

They decided their core business is not BEING A DUMB PIPE TO THE INTERNET. They have decided to be an all encompassing content provider who has trapped customers due to utility easements. Much easier being a landlord and collecting rent from public property.

---

They decided their core business is not BEING A DUMB PIPE TO THE INTERNET. They have decided to be an all encompassing content ....

CATV, Google and anyone else has the right to use The Phone Company's plant to run wires. TPC did not decide anything, the public drunk on MCI Kool-Aid, demanded it. Free enterprise it works*.

*except for a natural monopoly.

---

They decided their core business is not BEING A DUMB PIPE TO THE INTERNET. They have decided to be an all encompassing content provider who has trapped customers due to utility easements.

...which means they have that much more money to spend on infrastructure and R&D.

Much easier being a landlord and collecting rent from public property.

Yeah, but people will only accept being a slum lord for so long. Eventually people will start demanding more for their money.

They decided their core business is not BEING A DUMB PIPE TO THE INTERNET. They have decided to be an all encompassing content provider who has trapped customers due to utility easements.

...which means they have that much more money to spend on infrastructure and R&D.

Might be my bad with a double negative. The money is going into content creation and aqusition, not infrastructure.

Much easier being a landlord and collecting rent from public property.

Yeah, but people will only accept being a slum lord for so long. Eventually people will start demanding more for their money.

---

Might be my bad with a double negative. The money is going into content creation and aqusition, not infrastructure.

If you are talking about the ISPs they have different agendas. Comcast now owns NBC and yes they want to be an end to end producer and provider. If you are talking about Verizon they want to be a wireless provider and would be happy to give up the last mile landline business. Verizon has unloaded much of that end of the business the last few years; if POTS weren't regulated they would abandon the copper in place and walk away.

---

Might be my bad with a double negative. The money is going into content creation and aqusition, not infrastructure.

If you are talking about the ISPs they have different agendas. Comcast now owns NBC and yes they want to be an end to end producer and provider. If you are talking about Verizon they want to be a wireless provider and would be happy to give up the last mile landline business. Verizon has unloaded much of that end of the business the last few years; if POTS weren't regulated they would abandon the copper in place and walk away.

Verizon is selling all the copper as fast as it can. However it wants to keep its fiber FIOS service thereby becoming a Cable TV provider and do Comcast / Time Warner deals. You really should read their annual report.

---

Verizon is selling all the copper as fast as it can. However it wants to keep its fiber FIOS service thereby becoming a Cable TV provider and do Comcast / Time Warner deals. You really should read their annual report.

For now but they will not run one more inch of glass. The new CEO came from wireless and he put a stop to any new FiOS. Verizon has yet to make back the $21 billion spent on the fiber to the premises. Only 1/3 of homes passed sign up.

When Verizon sold the landlines to Frontier in 14 states some of it was FiOS. The first thing Frontier did was drop the CATV service. The deal Verizon is making with CATV is so they don't have to replace the copper with FiOS. Verizon fulfills their obligation to provide broadband by contracting it out to a CATV.

Government meddling, isn't it grand?

---

Verizon is selling all the copper as fast as it can. However it wants to keep its fiber FIOS service thereby becoming a Cable TV provider and do Comcast / Time Warner deals. You really should read their annual report.

For now but they will not run one more inch of glass. The new CEO came from wireless and he put a stop to any new FiOS. Verizon has yet to make back the $21 billion spent on the fiber to the premises. Only 1/3 of homes passed sign up.

When Verizon sold the landlines to Frontier in 14 states some of it was FiOS. The first thing Frontier did was drop the CATV service. The deal Verizon is making with CATV is so they don't have to replace the copper with FiOS. Verizon fulfills their obligation to provide broadband by contracting it out to a CATV.

Government meddling, isn't it grand?

If he came from wireless then he should know its only wireless between your cellphone and the tower or the tower and your cellphone. Everything in between goes through wire or fibre.

---

[/quote]

Old James

If he came from wireless then he should know its only wireless between your cellphone and the tower or the tower and your cellphone. Everything in between goes through wire or fibre.

The fiber backhaul for cell towers is more like a backbone not a last mile; Verizon wireless is it's own company in Verizon Communication. Verizon wireless' cell towers in an at&t area has to lease lines from at&t.
It is the last mile that is expensive to place and maintain.
This so called fast lane is nothing new; TPC has been selling private lease lines since Watson was Bell Labs.

---

They decided their core business is not BEING A DUMB PIPE TO THE INTERNET. They have decided to be an all encompassing content provider who has trapped customers due to utility easements.

...which means they have that much more money to spend on infrastructure and R&D.

Might be my bad with a double negative. The money is going into content creation and aqusition, not infrastructure.

I'm aware of where they choose to invest their money. My comments have suggested they need to re-think their choices instead of double-dipping.

Proof that Netflix is a lying leech.
The latest ISP speed "report" from Netflix has Verizon DSL last with an AVERAGE speed of 0.91 Mbps.

I just happen to have Verizon DSL and Netflix is kind enough to offer a video for testing.
This is my speed during peak viewing hours;

DU Meter Stopwatch - #1
Start time 7/14/2014 7:35:18 PM
Stop time 7/14/2014 7:37:48 PM
Elapsed time 2 min 30.3 sec
Incoming Outgoing
------------------------------------ ---------------- ----------------
Total of data transferred 23.1 MB 345.2 KB
Maximum transfer rate 11.0 Mbps 153.2 kbps
Average transfer rate 1.3 Mbps 18.8 kbps

I AVERAGED 1.3 Mgps but when the video started I got 11.0 Mbps and it buffered for 30 seconds then the speed drooped 0. The video played fine.
So yes figures don't lie but lairs figure.

---