>> No this is not appropriate. Sites do not 'consume' resources, users do.
>You're drawing an arbitrary distinction between push and pull. Nexflix uses resources by sending content in the same way I use resources by uploading a file. Internet communication is a two way street.
You both seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding. Both Netflix and the customer are consuming resources and paying for them. Netflix pays for it's access and usage of the network, and so does the customer. Their networks have peering agreements to pass the data between networks. The question isn't if both should be paying, but if either one should have to pay more depending on where in the network the other one is or on the 'flavor' of the packets that are being sent. Net neutrality is supposed to protect Netflix from having to Pay Comcast for access to Comcast customers (in addition to what they pay for their network access), and it protects customers from having to pay Comcast for access to Netflix (in addition to what they pay for their network access).
> You could charge everyone more across the board but but that's unfair to people who aren't streaming.
Or you charge people for the capacity they use and charge more during peak times. This protects the problem without allowing the granting the current oligopolies massive market distorting power.
> Perfect, so fix the conflict of intersts and there's no need for NN.
Ok, fix those conflicts of interest first, then we can consider taking a look at crafting exceptions to the laws that protect us from.
The current effort isn't to make exceptions for QoS, the current effort is the repeal of the framework that allows ANY legal protection for Net Neutrality.
> Not possible. Cross-network traffic is inherantly political and even without that benevolent network operators still need to have policies to mediate allocation of a shared resource.
In what way is it not possible to create fair rules for who pays to build connections between networks and to mandate fair treatment in the creation of peering agreements between networks? Perhaps perfect fairness is not possible but you are saying that we shouldn't even be allowed to try.
> Or you charge people for the capacity they use and charge more during peak times.
It really doesn't matter. Since NN really only matters in the content delivery game this is just more directly giving ISPs what they've been asking for. It might make some people feel better but it's still a surcharge for competing video services.
> In what way...
Because it's still just as political, now the negotiation just takes place in government offices and lobbies. You might as well let companies hash out the agreements between themselves because the law will still be written to favor large incumbent players but now it's even harder to change. If things get dire the gov't can still step in.
> Netflix has peering agreements with Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and a lot more
Comcast's anticompetitive rent seeking behavior was a strategy of deliberately degrading Netflix's network access to Comcast customers to the point where Netflix was forced to pay Comcast or start losing customers.
This is the EXACT reason we we need better net neutrality protections, so that this type of oligopolic rent-seeking behavior is illegal.
>Comcast was the first large terminating access network to successfully implement a “congest transit pipes” peering strategy to extract direct payment from Netflix, but it is not the only one to do so. Since agreeing to pay Comcast, Netflix also has agreed to pay TWC, AT&T and Verlzon for interconnection. [Redacted section.] Netflix is not the only edge provider to encounter Comcast’s peering strategy. In a 2011 filing with the Commission, Voxel, a hosting company relying on Tata for interconnection with Comcast’s network, noted that “[w]here broadband ISPS typically ensure that links connecting their customers to outside networks are relatively free from congestion, Comcast appears to be taking the opposite approach: maintaining highly-congested links between its network and external ISP.” The letter concludes that Comcast, through its “interconnection relations,” had “deployed an ecosystem in which hosting companies such as Voxel are effectively forced to pay Comcast to serve its broadband subscribers.”
https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-t...
> It really doesn't matter. Since NN really only matters in the content delivery game this is just more directly giving ISPs what they've been asking for. It might make some people feel better but it's still a surcharge for competing video services.
What are you talking about? Charging customers more to a specific streaming provide is anti-competitive since they are at a disadvantage compared to other streaming providers. Charging customers more to access any streaming provider directly benefits Comcast's competing cable bundles and is also anti competitive.
Network neutrality is important for all kinds of stuff. From allowing the development of new P2P protocols, to the experience people have on different websites. Latency in browsing has a HUGE effect on how people perceive the comparative quality of sites.
>> In what way...
>Because it's still just as political,
You said it was NOT POSSIBLE, please back that up. Nothing you have said about negotiating peering agreement negotiationss and network interconnections makes dumb pipes not possible.
That's an uncharitable reading of the article you posted. Netflix pushes so much traffic that any company they buy transit from ends up using up all the good will of the people they have peering agreements with.
> Netflix attempted to address congested routes into Comcast by purchasing all available transit capacity from transit providers that did not pay access fees to Comcast.
And Netflix apparently knew they couldn't afford the traffic if they actually had to pay for it so they tried to route around it. And when they saturated those connections they had the audacity to tell Comcast it was their fault and they should foot the bill for infrastructure upgrades.
Netflix went to an all-you-can-eat restaurant, ordered two of everything on the menu, complained that the food didn't come out fast enough, tried to pay everyone else in restaurant for their seats, and then demanded the restaurant hire more chefs.
> “it is simply not possible for competing external providers to deliver gaming, or streaming video services to Comcast’s broadband subscribers” without directly or indirectly paying Comcast"
Well no shit since any company providing those services is going to push so much asymmetric traffic that either they or the companies they buy transit from are not going to be able to negotiate settlement-free peering agreements.
This isn't a "I send you some traffic, you send me some, no biggie" kind of agreement, this is a "I'm going to use 70-90% of your bandwidth at peak".
This article is trying really hard to paint Comcast as the bad guys but I actually don't think that's the case here. Netflix/Cogent had a similar spat with Verizon.
> What are you talking about?
I'm saying that allowing companies to price by volume and on/off-peak is really just a surcharge for streaming video which could be used to hurt competitors. It's not really a solution. So I think we're in agreement.
> You said it was NOT POSSIBLE...
I think we need to agree on what 'dumb' means. Connections between networks are inherently political no matter what entity presides over the negotiations. And since network access is a shared resource there will always be a need for network management policies to maintain service, respond to incidents, prevent spam, stop attacks, etc.. Both of these things make networks 'smart'.
>You're drawing an arbitrary distinction between push and pull. Nexflix uses resources by sending content in the same way I use resources by uploading a file. Internet communication is a two way street.
You both seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding. Both Netflix and the customer are consuming resources and paying for them. Netflix pays for it's access and usage of the network, and so does the customer. Their networks have peering agreements to pass the data between networks. The question isn't if both should be paying, but if either one should have to pay more depending on where in the network the other one is or on the 'flavor' of the packets that are being sent. Net neutrality is supposed to protect Netflix from having to Pay Comcast for access to Comcast customers (in addition to what they pay for their network access), and it protects customers from having to pay Comcast for access to Netflix (in addition to what they pay for their network access).
> You could charge everyone more across the board but but that's unfair to people who aren't streaming.
Or you charge people for the capacity they use and charge more during peak times. This protects the problem without allowing the granting the current oligopolies massive market distorting power.
> Perfect, so fix the conflict of intersts and there's no need for NN.
Ok, fix those conflicts of interest first, then we can consider taking a look at crafting exceptions to the laws that protect us from.
The current effort isn't to make exceptions for QoS, the current effort is the repeal of the framework that allows ANY legal protection for Net Neutrality.
> Not possible. Cross-network traffic is inherantly political and even without that benevolent network operators still need to have policies to mediate allocation of a shared resource.
In what way is it not possible to create fair rules for who pays to build connections between networks and to mandate fair treatment in the creation of peering agreements between networks? Perhaps perfect fairness is not possible but you are saying that we shouldn't even be allowed to try.