Many content suppliers are willing to deliver content directly to the Verizon local market. They use a CDN or their own servers and locate them in the SAME CITY as the Verizon client that is requesting the content. Verizon already receives considerable revenue from its clients, ostensibly for the delivery of content requested by the client. (Given the large
downstream bias in the rate-limits imposed by VZ, and the prohibition on operating servers in the home; it is pretty hard for VZ to argue that its clients are paying primarily for upstream service).
Verizon should remove all impediments from external traffic flows within the local market.
The Verizon customers are PAYING VERIZON to deliver content that we request.
If a content supplier is willing to go the extra mile and deliver the content to the local market, the VERY LEAST that Verizon can do is accept and deliver the traffic without any bottleneck. WE ARE PAYING YOU TO DO THAT JOB.
Personally, I think my $5000/year is also enough money for Verizon to add capacity to its WAN and to then accept content that I request from ANYWHERE it has peering, not just local market. But I figure that is a tough sell, given that VZ might have to invest money on wireline equipment, instead of diverting funds to build your lucrative wireless business (for which I separately pay VZW $3600/year).
I miss Sidenberg. It seems that he had vision. The new management seems to only have greed.
9:09PM Sunday night. Speed-test server here in the same city with me. It is connected to Cogent. I can only get 522 KILO bits/sec downstream from that server.
That same server tests at over 500 Mega bps when the cogent-Verizon peering isn't slammed.
Similar busy-hour degradation is visible on some of the other peering sessions here in LA (e.g.. NTT, GBLX). Verizon customers are PAYING VERIZON to deliver content that we request. Stop trying to extort content originators or the network suppliers that they contract. Be satisfied with the money we already pay you.