So connect to a different endpoint. My VPN provider has many dozens of different locations that I can connect to in all major locations in the US (and world wide.)
I would believe the bandwidth disparity argument if end user connections where also balanced, same upstream and downstream bandwidth.
If Verizon is selling asymmetric connections to end users then how can those connections generate a balanced load (same up and down)?
My local cable connection is 75MB/s down and 5MB/s up. And if I try and use a substantial portion of the UP the ability of TCP to pull large amounts of data down suffers.
Since (well at least for the Los Angeles peering point) the finger is pointed directly at Verizon.
Level 3 has requested, Verizon has declined, to install additional 10 GB connections to increase bandwidth that is at 100% capacity.
A very low cost solution to allow traffic that Verizon's customers have requested to transit from Level 3 to Verizon's network.
I'm zero steps away from saying Verizon needs to provide adequate peering for the services THEIR customers want to use.
In this case Verizon's customers want Netflix and think they are paying an adequate fee for a high bandwidth (e.g. 75MB) connection that will support a reasonable VOD stream.
Verizon needs to provide that service. Netflix needs to pay to get the bits TO the peer point. Verizon's customers need to pay to get the bits FROM the peer point.
At some point an enterprising class action legal firm is going to crunch the numbers on behalf of Verizon's customers. It won't be Netflix they will go after.
This is exactly what Level 3 claims.
The above uses the Los Angeles interconnect as an example. Four 10-GB ethernet connections between Level 3 and Verizon and they are saturated.
Level 3 wants to add additional 10-GB connections (and even offered to buy the router cards, cable and do the install
"So in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers. Simple. Something we’ve been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion."
It *could* be that Verizon realizes that currently, as configured, the Verizon network is running nicely (as the nice diagram shows). And that doubling the amount of traffic by doubling the interconnect to Level 3 (and thereby satisfying their customers demand for Netflix VOD) would cause a meltdown.
But in any respect, Verizon is selling a service and not providing it. Netflix is paying for transit TO Verizon and Verizon's customers are paying for transit (to Verizon) for transit from Level 3. Verizon needs to charge their customes what they need to provide the service.
When the first question your users ask stops being "Can I watch Netflix?" then you can charge the ones that do ask it more for the exorbitant service level they are demanding.
Until then, since it IS the first question most of your users are probably asking you need to suck it up and provide the service even if it means charging more. If your ARE the only provider because of the small area you are in then your users will either pay or give up netflix.
If you allow municipalities to a) collect the fines and b) game the system be prepared for problems.
In BC it is mostly the opposite. Ticketing and cost of enforcement IS covered by the municipalities (who fund the police) but the fines go to the provincial government. So increased enforcement (which may be a good thing) will cost the municipality more. And if they are willing to fund that then good for them. But they won't increase their revenues. And in fact may increase their policing costs if the ticketing officers have to attend court more often to defend the tickets they write.
Gaming the system (short Yellow lights for example) will result in higher revenue to the province. But more complaints to the municipality. So mostly doesn't happen.
While the province can (to some extent) game the system by trying to introduce things like traffic cameras, in practice they are more sensitive overall to campaigns to complain about them. So they move slower with more political caution.
We also have a provincially mandated insurance (for which there are lots of pro's and con's...) One of the side effects is that intersections that are expensive (i.e. high number of accidents) to the Insurance company will get money flowing from there back to the municipality to improve it. E.g. better signals, barriers etc. The point is that money to improve safety may be less than paying out for accidents. They also will make suggestions back to the city engineering department WRT to things like signal timing which will help reduce accidents.
Its quite possible that upgrading the interconnect would all of a sudden cause Verizons network to melt down (i.e. push their overall utilization from a nice manageable number to something unmanageable.)
But if that is true it simply means Verizon is not charging THEIR customers enough to provide THEIR customers with the traffic that THEIR customers have requested.
Yes it is Netflix that is the source of the traffic. But it is Verizon CUSTOMERS that are requesting that traffic based on representations made by Verizon (pay this much and we will allow you to download XXMbits/s.) If Verizon cannot provide that download then they are not doing the job they are being PAID to do.
No, on the Internet you pay for YOUR traffic period to YOUR provider.
Verizon needs to charge THEIR customers for all costs. Level 3 needs to charge their customers (Netflix in this case) for their costs.
The problem is that the new model of watching streaming video requiring larger bandwidth and providers like Verizon are looking for ways to pay for that infrastructure. Charging additional fee's to their customers is difficult (image for a second if Verizon tried to market broadband connections for $X/month or 2x$X/month if you want to stream video... )
So instead they try and bully the other end (Netflix being the easy target with the deepest pockets) into kicking some money their way.
Yes, because running over people, animals and into farmer's fields are such a good way to advertise your vehicle and its benefits. So we can just assume that the car manufacturers simply won't bother to try and minimize that. Or that you are simply so much smarter and this is simply something that they would not think of. Years from now they'll look back and say if only we had read Slashdot and thought to build cars that didn't do that we would have to recall millions of cars for a software upgrade...
The question is not whether they will cause problems.
The question is whether the cost of the problems will out weight the cost savings.
Sometimes this gets lost, especially when the costs are born by one organization and the benefits are gained by someone else.
This is not a new dilemma. Personal computers aid criminals. So do Smart phones. So does the Internet. Should we make laws against all of those?
In point of fact cars themselves greatly benefit criminals. Perhaps we should just outlaw cars.
Officials predict misuse of new technology! News at 11:00!
Natural adaptation to fast changing CO2 might be hard.
But certainly fast adaptation of food crops is not only possible but already in progress (accelerated breeding and genetic modification). We simply don't grow the same stuff today that we did 50-100 years ago.
And we won't be growing today's crops 20 years from now even IF the climate stays exactly the same as it is today (which is unlikely, it will be slightly colder or slightly warmer or slightly drier or slightly wetter depending on where you are.)
No because the elevator operators and Ether would still be tilling the farm. Even those jobs where "new" in the early part of the last century. And allowed by improvements (read technology) in farming that freed up workers for those "new" jobs.
You can replace your land line phone with a flip cell phone.
You can replace your flip phone with a "smartphone" (well they did call them that at the time...)
You can replace your smartphone with an iPhone or an Android.
Do you think that we really would want to go back to what was the standard phone service in the 70's and 80's?
Or TV service (all 3-4 channels) of the sixties?
Taxi service has not changed all that much. There is a bit of automation in the dispatching. But the basic model of a regulated (medallioned) driver getting hailed or dispatched by radio (now computer) is essentially the same as it was 50-60-80 years ago. And really that was little changed from the horse drawn equivalent in larger cities in the 1800's.
It is seriously time to look at new models of service.