You can read their peering rules here: http://www.verizonenterprise.com/terms/peering/
We can argue that it is just semantics but it is more in-depth than "throttling."
The requirement that traffic be balanced is nonsensical. In a logical sense, all packets in a connection should be 'billed' to the initiator. Raw data rates are a terrible proxy for this, and shouldn't be used at all. So in the case of Netflix, Verizon is responsible for about 99% of the traffic and the only party that should even think about charging for the interconnect is Netflix.
Is there anything else that's a problem?
However I'm not sure where you get the 99% or anything like that. If I'm Verizon and I own the last mile to the eyeballs you want then I can set my policies to benefit me, which they have. However they aren't throttling and Title II will do nothing about the peering issue or the policies they have set around it.
Technically. The problem is that setting the rules so that some providers saturate is functionally equivalent to throttling arbitrarily.
Verizon is setting these rules in a way that can't be reasonably complied with, so they are fully responsible for the outcome. It shouldn't be phrased as if it justifies anything.
Thanks for the downvote.
I'm not a networking expert so someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but those peering terms also specify shortest-exit routing, in which case the 1.8:1 traffic ratio is necessary to ensure that one peer does not do dramatically more "work" in terms of bit-miles.
It seems like Netflix and a consumer ISP are never going to be able to peer with traffic ratio requirements. If the consumer ISP offered best-exit routed settlement-free peering options, though, Netflix could easily comply.
It is my impression that a consumer ISPs refusing to offer settlement-free peering with a best-exit routing policy is apparently charging for access to its customers, not charging for access to its network.