For transit providers, asymmetry = Paid.
For local ISPs, they are typically willing to asymmetrically peer because they'd otherwise have to pay transit.
Since verizon is a T1 transit provider, it doesn't want to give it's service away for free.
I think the fair answer in this dispute depends on whether L3 and Cogent are forcing Verizon to provide transit for free or are they just delivering the data the local network for the customer (like a local ISP peering arrangement).
I'm not sure which is going on. If L3 is just dumping Netflix packets on the nearest Verizon peering location, well then Verizon is providing them a transit service. If L3 carries the data all the way to the local network, then it's not transit at all.
I'm not sure what is actually happening. I'd imagine a mix of both.
From Wikipedia:
"However, the most common definition of a tier 1 network is a network that can reach every other network on the Internet without purchasing IP transit or paying settlements."
Not really, for the consumer ISP side of its business Verizon absorbs more traffic than it produces by definition: consumers don't typically produce much data outside of p2p.
Furthermore, Netflix has offered putting server inside Verizon's network which makes this argument moot.
VZ just wants to double-bill.
But honestly, it couldn't be done. Not with the upload restrictions at the end of the pipe.
What if Netflix got that number to go up from say 30kbps to 500kbps? Still only 10% of upload speed link utilization on a 50/5 Mbps customer line.
Even if the ratio only went from 3:1 to 3:2 suddenly you're much, much closer to balanced. Takes a lot of wind out of their sails. Instead of "ZOMG THREE TIMES AS MUCH!" it's "FUCK IT'S 50% MORE!" which doesn't sound nearly as good.
I actually don't know. Is that legitimate?