Not a technical decision, but greed driven decision.

Also how is it that L3 can deliver the data to Verizon, but Verizon is just somehow incapable of passing it along to their customers? The answer is that it is not a techn

Again I am not sure why I am feeding a troll, but you seem to be in a gang of trolls. So sure... if we were talking about L3 sending data to Verizon that Verizon then had to ship across its own backbone then you would have a point. But in this case L3 is acting as the long haul backbone provider and all Verizon has to do is deliver the packets to the local customers that requested the data. Verizon is already charging its customers for the bandwidth, the only issue here is that they are choosing to not to deliver on that promise in order to try and shake down Netflix and by extension Verizons own customers for more money. This is a fraudulent business practice pure and simple. Enron would be proud.

Yes, okay. That is a funny thought experiment, but Verizon isn't actually confused about the fact that as a local ISP Verizon customers are the ones actually requesting netflix video so the concept of peering traffic "parity" does not apply to local ISPs connecting to backbone providers.

And naturally Verizon customers are all in a huff about Verizon trying to charge them twice for bandwidth they aren't receiving.

Traffic "parity" is only relevant when you are talking about backbone Internet providers providing alternative routes in order to help make the Internet routing more robust. Basically an I'll scratch your back and you scratch my back mutually beneficial scenario where having two equal backbone Internet partners is more robust than having just one route over a long haul network. So for instance having a peering agreement with a company that has a wire from LA to Boston so that if your LA to Boston wire goes down, then your traffic can still get through.

But when you are talking about last-mile customers who are the ones initiating the requests for content, then peering is not about traffic parity, it is about providing your customers with the bandwidth to the content they want. As long as L3 is willing to provide adequate bandwidth connections to Verizon's networks in the local metropolitan areas, then they are fulfilling their end of the bargain as a backbone provider peering with a local ISP.

Sure, if L3 was just saying they were going to dump all the Internet Traffic destined for the East Coast in LA and Verizon could deal with getting it across the country, then that wouldn't fly. But as far as I know L3 is ready willing and able to send all the traffic across the country and put it as geographically close to the Verizon customers who are requesting the content as Verizon will allow. But it is Verizon simply saying they won't allow L3 to increase the bandwidth to Verizon Customers until Verizon gets a bigger cut of the action.

Transit capacity is irrelevant. L3 is a backbone Internet provider. They have plenty of bandwidth to get all the packets to Verizon's networks in the areas Verizon serves. Verizon is just unwilling to provide their own Verizon customers with the bandwidth they require to access the content they want.

I understand just fine. That's why I know better than most that what you are saying is a load of complete and utter crap deserving of contempt. Data coming from level 3 is being requested by Verizon Customers. Verizon isn't acting as a transit network unless they want to, so peering is just about getting Verizon customers the data they are requesting. Level 3 would gladly peer with Verizon in every metropolitan area in which they operate at very high speeds. Verizon is choosing not to.

I bet Verizon knows. ;) Pending an upgrade....Ya right, more like pending a nice fat check from Netlfix or L3

That is a load of horseshit!

Or let me be clear. That is a load of horeshit technobabble meant to obfuscate and mislead. Level 3 was pretty clear the other day when they offered to spend a few thousand dollars to upgrade their links to Verizon. Level 3 is a backbone Internet provider. There is no reason that any link between it and another network should remain saturated if both sides are acting in good faith to serve their respective customers, especially when L3 was willing to pay the costs to upgrade Verizon's own equipement to handle more traffic which it shouldn't have had to do because it is Verizon's customers who are requesting and already paying for the content in the first place.

Verizon is choosing to not upgrade its connections to shake down Netflix, and thus pass those costs on to Verizon customers. Period.

More like "Payola" than anything else. You subscibe to their service and then they are shaking down the content providers for bribes in order to give them higher speeds to you, while they are telling you that you are getting a certain speed and lying about the reasons why you are not getting content at the speeds you are paying for. Seems like the anology of radio stations taking bribes to feature certain content without informing the consumers of that relationship is most appropriate.

Oh no imagine what we would lose if Comcast and Verizon had to compete with real fiber service providers... all that bandwidth which now goes to aimlessly broadcast things like Golf TV or five hundred niche channels that make the companies more money than allowing you to do what it is you actually would want to do with the bandwidth.

Was with you up until that point. Maybe when these "burdens" in return for a franchise were conceived they were considered onerous, but now with regulatory capture they really do result in local monopolies and are often in effect exclusive of competition. And basically all the companies have to do is pick and choose which communities they serve and then the burden is something like providing the local schools and the Town with free connections and maybe they will throw in some money for a local access cable tv station where the local politicians get to give some friends, family and their kids air time on local tv. All that "burden" is just passed along to the local subscribers as either extra fees or built into the cost of the service.

I hear NASA planning meetings go something like:

So.... NASA isn't good at perfecting technology, making it efficient and cost effective because that is iterative and evolutionary, but if you need to dream up a new way to land on Mars or do a one-off science experiment, then they have the brain boxes to do it.

Personally I'd rather see NASA funding other people and institutions doing much of the science and setting some higher level requirements for systems and missions and seeing what different companies can come up with to meet those requirements. And then if it turns out that two cheap 50 ton launch vehicles are better than a 100 ton launch vehicle that costs ten or twenty times as much and another decade to develop, then adapt the mission requirements and assemble in orbit or figure something else out. Be nimble and adapt to what the technology makes possible, don't just dream about the impossible like it is some grudge match or some academic thesis where you have to be "original" to a fault.

Bingo! I was looking to see if anyone else made this comment. As long as Amazon isn't just adding fat to the organization, but is actually reinvesting in growth which will otherwise be profitable, then not making a taxable profit is the best thing an American company could do with its money. Especially if they expect corporate tax relief in the future.