If BT (largest ISP in the UK) tried to pull any of the stuff that's been going on, they would have been fined, and users would have left in droves. All the major ISPs here in the UK have multiple CDN node on the edge of their network, simply because its cheaper and easier to do so.

The other important thing to note about the netflix vs ISP battle is that it is still cheaper to pay the ISP money to install their own CDN than it is to use akamai(who already have CDN blades on the edge).

The problem in the States is that end users have no choice, and there is no working mechanism for imposing fines on companies that are doing anti-competitive things.

So I'd suggest that net neutrality is actually a side show here, the real culprit is monopolies.

An example that I've bumped into, is trying to buy a decent network connection in redwood city. I naively assumed that it would be simple cheap and quick to procure a 1gig line. It took six months (not for legals but for actual installation), didn't work properly for the first 3 weeks. It also cost 3 times more than the connection in London.

The UK government was against Net Neutrality legislation: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2010/11/17/uk-government-su...

And again in 2011: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/ed-vaizey%E2%80%99...

This eventually led to consultation in 2012 by Neelie Kroes, EU Commissioner for Competition, and we got legislation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26865869

After all, if all of ISP companies decided that they could make metric tons of money by gating off the internet, and there were no laws against it, you could potentially end up with a situation where every ISP is charging ransom.

Look at mobile telcos and text message charges. For a long time there every mobile provider was charging exorbitant rates for text messages because it was highly profitable and everyone was doing it. Eventually newcomers started offering free text packages, and maybe that's what would happen with ISP's. But it is not at all a given, especially because the barriers to entry to the market are so high.

The market players aren't dumb, and they realize that if the barrier to entry is high enough, they can maximize profits by simply not competing. Price wars are terrible things for companies in such situations.

That said, there's no point in discussing history (such as turbine pricing) with you, because you've already demonstrated that you're a completely typical closed-minded religious zealot with an aversion to reality.

The former is a matter of defining a rule that says "If you do this, we will fine you or worse", where "this" is defined as various anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices.

The latter is a morass of legal wrangling (think ma bell getting broken up) that would have to repeat itself for every single major ISP out there.

i like to believe that competition can solve this particular problem, but the honest truth is that real competition in broadband internet access is a distant distant idea, regardless of what policies we put in place (which would also be long term policies -- like dig once). enabling real competition would also require even more "heavy handed" regulation, like requiring open access to infrastructure & public right-of-ways, which are at the heart of the physical portion of broadband networks, and which would be a 10x bigger fight than the net neutrality fight.

Hard to do when anything and everything involving telecom is decidedly not free market. Just some larger obstructions:

* Zoning permits

* Getting permission to lay wire, even through private property

* Wireless Spectrum Ownership

* Zoning permits on broadcast towers

* Anti-competitive pressure through corrupt state institutions by incumbents against potential competition

* Absurdity of having a half dozen ISPs all running their own fiber lines under roads

It's weird to pine for the good ol' days of dialup internet, but when anyone could offer internet services over a common leased infrastructure (the phone system) there was vibrant competition.

The problems we are seeing are because corporations are already failing as an infrastructure.

What's the solution to the problem of a lack of competition?

Either you remove restrictions on infrastructure building (ie, once one company is allowed to lay fiber or coax, any company must be allowed), or you have public ownership of the lines, or you compel the private owner of the lines to sell bandwidth on their lines at a state set rate.

None of which the US government is particularly good at. Which is a shame really.

That is not a solution, it is an intention. The solution is how do you go about "forcing" companies to carry all traffic equally. This is utterly unenforceable and unmeasurable. Also, I have a moral problem with your willingness to "force" someone to do something because of your worldview. That kind of solution does not scale (you either think you could have a monopoly for every market and force them to do what you want, or you think we're all better off through the natural competition for paying customers).

> What's the solution to the problem of a lack of competition?

Stop government from interfering with the market. This solution is much clearer in my opinion. Monopoly comes from the government as it gives particular rights and benefits to this or that corporation. Let corporations fight against each other for the customers' money and you'll be enabling people to choose what they want, by voting with their dollars.

I don't understand how it is unenforceable and unmeasurable. We already know certain ISPs do it today and we can test for it. I can test it at my own home by turning my VPN on and off. And the FCC can enforce it like it enforces everything else: fining. You might as well say we might as well allow everyone to use all wireless spectrum however they feel, because forcing them to use certain bands for certain types of information is "unenforceable and unmeasurable". Testing that is also hard, yet we still have rules and we still fine people for it.

>Also, I have a moral problem with your willingness to "force" someone to do something because of your worldview.

First, it's a corporation, not "someone". Secondly, if you wish to do business in most civilized areas, there are certain rules you must abide by. A good example is "forcing" a company to not dump toxic waste in river. Some things are done for the common good of all, and one of the things governments are supposed to do is balance that with interests of the few. Just like how dumping waste in rivers is against the law, so too could the government force ISPs to be a common carrier.

>Stop government from interfering with the market.

Given the incredibly high cost of entry into this business, I'm curious why you think that without government interference, any company would be able to compete. If I were to start up my own local ISP today, I'd be faced with two choices: run my own fiber/copper or lease it from Comcast. Running my own cable is of course insanely expensive, and probably not a good investment. Meanwhile, without the government forcing Comcast to play nice, they would have no incentive to lease their cable to me at a decent price, or at all.

I totally agree that, in some cases, the government does things that enable anti-competitive behavior. Towns signing contracts with Comcast to be a sole-provider, or lobbyists helping draft laws that prevent municipal internet are some examples. However, completely removing any regulation and letting the already established conglomerates run amok is not going to get us any additional competition in this case.

Awesome. Then put up a website with your reports and make your case to convince people to switch to better ISPs. Why do you need the Gun of the State to do that for you?

> And the FCC can enforce it like it enforces everything else: fining.

A fine is not a deterrent, it is a disincentive. A disincentive is combined with other forces that a corporation takes into account when choosing how to act. For instance, the FCC has a "ban" on cursing on TV, but you may still choose to do so and pay the fine. So it is not a deterrent. Not to mention it is condescending (and this has real implications in society, as it discourages people from thinking by themselves) that the FCC thinks they can decide for me what I should and shouldn't be exposed to.

> You might as well say we might as well allow everyone to use all wireless spectrum however they feel, because forcing them to use certain bands for certain types of information is "unenforceable and unmeasurable". Testing that is also hard, yet we still have rules and we still fine people for it.

And you think the only way to sensibly share the wireless spectrum is by giving the government a monopoly over the sky and letting them force people to use it in a certain way? First of all this is a terrible idea on moral grounds. There's no incentive for the government not to abuse this power in the form of censorship or cronyism by benefiting a broadcasting company that will provide funds for a presidential government and so on. So many bad scenarios derive from giving this monopoly to a gang with a license to kill (a few more: it discourages innovation, it raises the barrier to entry, it raises prices unnecessarily (money that would be otherwise usefully applied elsewhere), and it places communication in the hands of unregulated regulators). FCC was not always the way, and radio waves have not always been regulated, and people did just fine. Something else to blame Hoover for (he also thought, like you, that the government needs the FCC to "prevent interference" among users of these bands). I would apply the principle of homesteading to frequency bands as it seems to me (I haven't done much reading on this) to be the same problem as the allocation of land problem.

And arguing "yet we still have rules and we still fine people for it" does not address my points. This is just a status quo fact, not an argument.

> First, it's a corporation, not "someone". Secondly, if you wish to do business in most civilized areas, there are certain rules you must abide by. A good example is "forcing" a company to not dump toxic waste in river. Some things are done for the common good of all, and one of the things governments are supposed to do is balance that with interests of the few. Just like how dumping waste in rivers is against the law, so too could the government force ISPs to be a common carrier.

But the government you deem necessary has turned corporations into people, so it is someone, because a corporation can only lose as much money as it has in its coffers and the people hiding behind the government's license to incorporate cannot be held responsible for what "the corporation" does. So it is someone, unfortunately.

Then you make a fallacious status quo argument - "most areas have rules". So what? I'm arguing those rules are immoral and you're not addressing my point.

You're also mistaken if you think the only way to enforce non-pollution is through rules and fines. Again, those are disincentives, not deterrents. It works better if you create positive incentives not to pollute in the first place. This is a huge topic and I'm already over-extending myself, so I'll stop here.

I disagree with several of your premises: that governments are supposed to be concerned about the "common good" (whatever they decide is the most profitable definition thereof), that dumping waste in rivers should be illegal (who decides what "waste" is? how does fining after-the-fact help keep rivers clean? what is the incentive to keep clean something no one owns?). So I don't think you're making a strong case.

> Given the incredibly high cost of entry into this business

It is only high because the government skews the market by regulating it. There's demand for higher speed, lower priced internet than what the current monopolies offer. But you think this is an insurmountable problem that the entrepreneurs will never be able to solve? That's just it, we know for sure it's expensive to open up your own ISP, therefore let's make that illegal? I believe more in people and their ingenuity to come up with solutions to even problems that were once (or are now) deemed impossible, or as you put it, "insanely expensive".

First, to clarify, it's not innguest's moral problem; it's a quandary at the intersection of ethics and politics. If you care about ethical questions at all, this one's meaty: it tugs at the threads of social organization, sanctioned force, individual liberty, international law, and capitalism.

Second, innguest has rationally advocated a position; that's reason enough for me, at least, to pause and consider.

Third, if you're in the US, you have something directly at stake in this argument. Sure, the politics may already be decided on party lines, favors, and lobbying, but as the citizenry we owe it to ourselves to form a coherent political philosophy to serve as the yardstick informing us just how bad the government's decisions are.

Fourth, there should be a huge bar to clear for any party looking to impose invasive rules on someone else using the hand of government. The folks writing the laws are almost uniformly not subject matter experts; they act in self-interested ways that are well known; any proposal will be highly adulterated by the time it passes; any new law becomes a precedent for the next; and unknown consequences are rife, particularly with rights and the economy. I'd be highly critical of anyone willing to advocate this without deeply considering all facets, including innguest's points.

And finally, while morals are of course subjective, they should at least be held to the standards of justifiability and internal consistency; I don't believe this net neutrality push meets those requirements. If government enforces this on cable companies, can it determine which products Walmart carries, and which go on the prized middle shelves? Maybe it's only for monopolies, though...but then, I have no fewer than 4 choices to get Internet to my house, so it's not a monopoly. Unless it's only service of a particular quality. Who sets the quality requirements? And should the provider really not have the ability to charge more for heavier usage of the pipes? You pass something like this, you better have answered all of those and literally hundreds of others, and guaranteed that in every law where that happens, most of the answers are arbitrary.

Just think about all the voluntary actions you take throughout the day. Then someone says you must do something different now, or a pay a price. They would need to have a pretty good reason, right?

So you should care because I am advocating a philosophy that is cogent and supporting of a peaceful society, while what you are arguing is the opposite of that.

Consider the ramifications: with voluntarism as nearly the only requirement, libertarianism is a substrate for communities to layer additional rules on top as befit their values: socialist communes, gun-free zones, drug markets, shared libraries, required weapons training, a Greek-style local democracy, whatever. Two communities can be diametrically opposed in their values, sharing only the common tenet that everyone participates voluntarily.

Of course it's impossible to pull off: can kids born in each community be considered voluntary participants? Can someone revoke their rights for the rest of their life with the stroke of a pen? How does someone traveling through these places even keep track of the laws (we see this with states already)? Lots of difficult/impossible/senseless questions arise. But it's a thought experiment: absent religious considerations, is there a more moral system that allowing everyone to voluntarily interact with others in only those ways that are mutually beneficial?

Those details aside, if allowing as many people to craft their life experiences as voluntarily as possible is of merit, investing great power in a central power governing over 300 million people is an extremely poor way to achieve it.

Please show an excerpt where I imply that my morals are relevant to your opinions.

When I say 'I have a moral problem with your willingness to "force" someone to do something' I mean 'I can refute it on moral grounds'. The refutation being, forcing someone/a monopoly/a group of people/a corporation to act against its incentives is perverse (it minimizes freedom) and especially so when there are alternatives that are not perverse and that maximize freedom, which is competition.

I think you're overcomplicating this.

Comcast, the bane of reddit's technology sub and elsewhere is the only choice for real high speed internet I have. the phone company? They don't care, they did not and are not offering to increase speeds to compete.

How would transforming this all to utilities solve it? If anything I would never seen any improvement, well unless I lived on the same route as an important politician. Where would the incentive be to ever serve outlying areas with high speed networks? Would changes prevent cherry picking which neighborhoods get access? Are we just going to regulate ourselves mediocrity? Besides lack of will, there will endless money spent on litigation.

This addresses ALL of the concerns raised on this thread about incentives, competition, various arguments for/against net neutrality, and it finally proposes what I consider to be a very fair solution. I just read it yesterday and am planning to write up a summary blog post, unless someone else beats me to it.

From the paper:

Table 2. Effect of policy goals upon an ISP offering VoIP.

Is it acceptable if …

… a carrier blocks a competitor’s VoIP traffic? no

… a carrier doesn't block a competitor’s VoIP traffic, but doesn't offer QoS to competitor’s VoIP subscribers while using QoS for its own VoIP subscribers? no

… a carrier gives a broadband subscriber who uses a competitor’s VoIP service the choice of (a) best-effort transport of their VoIP traffic as part of the basic broadband package, (b) enhanced performance for their VoIP traffic for an additional 1¢/min paid by the subscriber, or (c) enhanced performance for up to 500 minutes of their VoIP traffic for an additional $5/month paid by the subscriber? yes

… a carrier gives a VoIP competitor the choice of (a) best-effort transport of their VoIP traffic as part of the subscriber’s basic broadband package or (b) enhanced performance for their VoIP traffic for an additional 1¢/min paid by the VoIP provider? yes

… a carrier charges different VoIP competitors different prices for QoS? no

… a carrier charges VoIP competitors a uniform price for QoS, but a different price than charged to its own affiliates? no

I wish the campaign well.

The FCC Order was motivated by a desire to preserve what was seen by many as the status quo ante that was, at the time the order was adopted, perceived to be under threat as big providers began discriminating against certain remote endpoints and applications. Mandated neutrality may only have existed for a short time, but the mandate wasn't the origin of neutrality it was an effort to preserve/restore what was perceived as pre-existing neutrality

I don't see the apocalyptic future neutrality advocates envision. I think there is a battle over Netflix because its such an outlier in terms of bandwidth usage, and because their stance on peering was at odds with the accepted understanding of free peering (the "status quo ante"). I don't think the ISP battle with Netflix can be generalized.

Because the voluntary behavior which maintained the status quo ante was observed to be changing.

> I think there is a battle over Netflix because its such an outlier in terms of bandwidth usage

While things like the attempt by broadband providers (largely also cable/IP TV providers) to impose anticompetitive discriminatory pay-for-access on competing video services were already on the horizon when the original FCC Open Internet Report and Order was issued (which is why such acts against competing video services were specifically called out in the Order in discussion of how its more general non-discrimination and non-blocking provisions would be applied), discrimination against particular edge providers isn't the sole focus of, or even really the main behavior change that motivated, net neutrality efforts. Blocking/discrimination of particular lawful end-user applications is at least as important in both aspects (of course, application-based discrimination and edge provider based discrimination overlap, since often an application is tied to a particular edge provider.)

> I don't think the ISP battle with Netflix can be generalized.

The issue, concerns, and specific behaviors at issue both predate the "ISP battle with Netflix" and have always been more general than it. Its not a matter of generalizing that battle, that's battle is simply today's most visible current manifestation of a general set of behaviors (Comcast's bittorrent blocking was the most visible recent exampe at the time FCC Open Internet Order.)

ISPs are suppressing Netflix not because of traffic asymmetries; the relatively small dollar amounts involved reveal it as an excuse.

Their real concern is that services like Netflix reduce the value of both traditional streamed TV content, and whatever value-add on-demand services that ISPs create and operate. Their worst nightmare is being reduced to dumb pipes, because that's a revenue growth dead-end.

At one point cable "on-demand" was a hot new technology that people were excited about (i.e. willing to pay for). Now people just get a Netflix subscription. Cable companies are not psyched about that.

this point is at the heart of the misleading rhetoric of the anti-NN crowd

I really can't believe you are so deluded to think that there is not a problem brewing here that has the potential to ruin the Internet as we know it (both as a consumer and a business owner).

ISP's have tended to charge for a specific speed, not amount of data. By throttling the Netflix connection they're basically saying "We don't really care that you paid us to be able to access anything on the internet at this speed".

And it's worth noting that this is a case where the ISP is in complete control of the speed you get Netflix. There are many cases where the ISP doesn't have a hand in this, the server you're connecting to simply can't pump stuff out fast enough to go as fast as your ISP will let you. But in this case Netflix has more then enough server power (Which they paid for), but the ISP's are specifically slowing down the end connection to you're house to a lower speed then you paid for unless Netflix is willing to fork over more money.

It is almost exactly the same thing as if you were to purchase a 'subscription' to the post office where they guarantee your packages would be delivered in at least 10 days (when possible). But, packages from Netflix are purposely slowed down by the post office and get to you in 14 days instead, and the post office turns around and tell Netflix they need to pay more if they want the package to get to you in 10 days, even though you already paid for that speed.

I think you're reading an "anything on the internet" into your service agreement that isn't there, but even then you have at best a case for false advertising. If ISP's were up front about these practices, would it be OK?

I don't know that regulations regarding advertised vs actual speeds are going to do anything to solve the problem, but I do believe that there is a problem when I can't use even 6% of the theoretical bandwidth that I've theoretically paid for.

I understand not getting 100% downloads all day every day from every website on the internet. Not all have fast enough servers or fast enough primary links or whatever. I understand not getting even say 50% downloads all day every day because I know how TCP backoff works; it's exponential and a lot of downloads are short.

I might even understand not being able to use all 25% of my connection 24/7 again because there are things like peak usage where everyone gets home from work and starts doing stuff online at home and the local loops that the cable company has provisioned might be too big to provide everyone with 100% throughput. I'm not necessarily complaining about that as there are realities to life that aren't necessarily pretty but still real.

But what I can't understand is that my ISP which advertises a specific download capability would throttle it at the SOURCE (or the input to their network) when there is enough bandwidth at the last mile to support the connection.

For the vast majority of internet history (admittedly only 25 years or so) the limiting factor was almost always the LAST MILE. We're now finding out that it's not the last mile anymore but still something within the ISP's control and they're not doing much to alleviate the problem.

This to many folks feels like a betrayal because according to a certain "the last mile is always the slowest" mindset, it is! People aren't wrong to think that because that's how it's always been. ISPs are creating a paradigm shift that they're not telling anyone about and are in fact doing a good job to obfuscate.

You might disagree that it is a betrayal but it feels like that to many folks. You can try to tell them they're wrong but I suspect that because of the many years of assumptions people have had about the way the world works you won't have a lot of luck.

But the point still stands, why the heck am I paying for 2 MB/s download speed if my ISP isn't even going to give me that much if I pay for it? IMO, it's simply bull. If they were actually upfront about these practices (instead of just making it look like Netflix's or whoever-else's fault) I can guarantee you their would be a ton more outrage. If my ISP isn't going to actually give me 2 MB/s download when they are completely capable of doing it, and I paid for it, that's just absurd. In any other industry that type of practice would easily be grounds for a lawsuit. It's not even that it's out of their control, they're purposely going against attempting to fulfill what you're paying for.

It certainly doesn't help that the SOP for ISPs in the US is to deflect blame for network issues, even when the blame falls squarely on them (throttling Netflix, their DNS server is down, etc). It's always the user's fault or the remote site's fault. Never the ISP's fault.

You can even see this in the rhetoric that they espouse about Netflix. The ISPs are choosing to throttle Netflix. It's a business decision. Yet, they want people to think that it's Netflix's fault for not "paying up." Regardless of whether or not you think that the ISPs have a right to ask Netflix for this money, it's disingenuous to say it's Netflix's "fault" for deciding not to pay.

What if it were Comcast charging Sony extra money to deliver their streaming service for Sony produced content? What if Time Warner wants to charge Hulu extra money to deliver content since it is owned by Comcast? You can dismiss Netflix for not creating content to a small degree (house of cards, arrested development, orange is the new black all produced by Netflix themselves, I would argue they are a content creator as well but thats beside the point) but if you substitute Netflix for someone else, its obvious that this is anticompetitive.

This is hacker news - Can you imagine trying to start a web based company and being forced to pay monthly fees to every single ISP just to get decent speeds to end users? What if Comcast decides it wants to start delivering goods so they jack up prices on instacart's monthly fees Or they want to expand into Taxi services so they throttle uber down to 52 kbps for all their customers

This is absolutely false. Almost all the existing cable infrastructure was built with private money.

> Can you imagine trying to start a web based company and being forced to pay monthly fees to every single ISP just to get decent speeds to end users?

So? It's precarious to build a business that depends wholly on someone else's expensive infrastructure. I don't see why web businesses should be different than app businesses in this regard, which have the same problem. If Apple decides to vertically integrate into your market, as an iOS app developer you don't have much recourse.

>I don't see why web businesses should be different than app businesses in this regard

So you see the World Wide Web as an equivalent to the Android Play Store? I find it hard to believe you do not see the gaping difference here. 1. the web was invented by a government agency 2. You pay for access to the web, this includes upload and download bandwidth, there are no restrictions that limit what you are allowed to do with this bandwidth, there is no agreement that you will only use specified port numbers, and not upload more than x amount of data, etc 3. would you say the automobile industry is wholly dependant on someone else's infrastructure? (roads, highways, street lights, electricity, etc) 4. again you pay for access to the web, not the web itself - the internet is not a product that is controlled by anyone, only its access is controlled. This is fundamentally different from an app store that a company wholly owns, and controls all content within

Comcast does not own or control any part of the internet itself, everything on the internet exists on the internet independently of Comcast. The only thing that Comcast provides subscribers is a pipe to and from the internet with an agreed upon speed to the internet

The only projects on that list that have distributed significant money are funded by the Universal Service Fund. That money doesn't come from general taxation, it comes from a specific tax on the telecom industry. Imagine if the government levied a 15% tax on smartphone sales and spent that money to subsidize telephones for the poor. Could you then turn around and say "Apple and Samsung are getting massive government subsidies?" That's basically what you're doing when you point to USF and say public money went into the telecom networks.

Moreover, this debate is mostly about cable, which has historically been a different sphere from "telecom" (i.e. the phone system). The networks we're talking about, Comcast's, TWC's, etc, are cable networks built with private money after deregulation in the 1990's.

> So you see the World Wide Web as an equivalent to the Android Play Store?

The World Wide Web is just a set of protocols that runs mostly on private networks. It's a platform owned by the companies that own those private networks.

Not only can you say that, you should say that. The tax money is ending up in Apple's and Samsung's pockets, routed through poor people (who presumably benefit from the subsidy, of course, and thus putatively benefiting society as a whole as well).

Just because the product or service is a derivative of something else doesn't mean it doesn't have real value. Fantasy football, for example. Should we look at fantasy football sites because they just repackage NFL stats?

In this situation, we should just let AT&T/Bell dictate all things internet, since they laid the foundation with their lines. I think the point has some weight, but there's a lot more at stake than a simple service fee.

... at a time when the government guaranteed their profits. I think that's an important point to remember when a business built off of years of government-granted monopoly starts complaining about government regulation.

Moreover, how relevant is the pre-1980's POTS infrastructure to this whole debate? How many Netflix customers are on DSL that hasn't been rebuilt since the breakup?

Very

> How many Netflix customers are on DSL that hasn't been rebuilt since the breakup?

Even if its been rebuilt since the property rights were acquired, the fact that the property rights were acquired when the provider had a monopoly and government backing (and the same thing applies to the cable cos that are ISPs as to the telcos) is a substantial advantage over any new entrant.

Everywhere I've lived, cable companies don't own the rights of way, but instead pay municipalities or power companies to run wire along public easements or power lines.

Do you remember life before Netflix? Incredible you would say they don't bring much value.

Its not really about getting money from Netflix, its about getting rid of Netflix.

Indeed, it's a fairly basic principle of the economics of building infrastructure. A free market underinvests in things like train lines because the builders can only capture one aspect of the positive value created by the infrastructure (the value to the user). However, that leaves a large amount of value to the businesses that users use the infrastructure to get to. If builders can't capture that aspect of value, they'll under invest in such infrastructure. There is a whole body of work on this subject.

And in fact, that's how it has traditionally worked on the internet. Netflix would pay it's ISP, and the consumer would pay their ISP, and the ISP's would pay each other to account for any asymmetry in the data transfer between them (peering). These payments would ultimately be reflected in the charges billed to both endpoints, so the ultimate effect was that each intermediate ISP effective billed each endpoint of the connection.

This whole debacle arose because Netflix's ISP (Cogent) wasn't willing to adhere to the traditional peering arrangements. So in the end, Netflix ended up paying to connect directly to Comcast's network.

That is a very strange way to look at things. The rate you're going, I can call anything pretty much anything. What is an ISP but a middle man -- they only facilitate content going from one end to another? Why is content the real value -- to me, it's totally formulaic, dull, uninspiring trash these days. See? You must explain more rigorously the criteria with which you're judging things here.

I also think your reduction of Netflix technology is peculiar - creating Netflix is no trivial feat. Reliable and user-friendly streaming technology for the masses, if it were so easy, would have been done earlier by other big companies. Netflix is doing a lot of things right, including making their own content of all varieties (children shows, adult shows, etc.) that seems to be received well by folks.

I'm guessing that you value the fact that ISPs have poured a fair bit of money into setting up the infrastructure. It's a good point, but I think ultimately moot. Lots of companies give it their all and still die. The people's will rules at the end of the day, whether to do business with them, whether to shape law to grant them their livelihood. This time, I'm personally okay with how people are judging ISPs.

You're right that Netflix and Amazon are creating value through their original content businesses. That's kind of orthogonal to this debate. That original content gives them a natural leverage over the ISP's that their role as content middlemen does not.

Guess who pays for that ISP? The consumer, and the consumer pays by having to be on a shitty network where the operator blackmails the places that are popular, because they are popular. Also, the consumer pays through the nose for this service. And if all this money is going into infrastructure, why don't I see it reflected in my speeds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation_Net...

Just in case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

CDNs are about making more copies of content and locating them closer to users, in order to make the average route to users shorter. There's nothing in that that is inconsistent with net neutrality: traffic from a CDN server to a given user doesn't get to the user any faster than any other traffic over the same route.

"Fast lanes" are about privileging some traffic over other traffic over the same route. That is what is inconsistent with net neutrality.

Also, the post makes an invalid assumption about how upgrades to networks get paid for:

> Forcing Comcast to upgrade their network to support Netflix means forcing the majority of low-bandwidth customers to subsidize the high-bandwidth customers.

No, it doesn't. Comcast can simply charge users more for more bandwidth usage. Again, there's nothing in that that is inconsistent with net neutrality, as long as Comcast (or any other ISP) charges just for bandwidth. Then Comcast uses the extra money it gets paid for more bandwidth, to upgrade its network so it can carry more bandwidth. People who don't use the extra bandwidth (like me) pay a lower rate for our service, so the upgrade is really being paid for by precisely the right people, the ones who need the higher bandwidth.

But what Comcast wants to do is charge more for Netflix bandwidth than for other kinds of bandwidth. (It's actually charging Netflix instead of Netflix's users, but that doesn't change the essential point.) That is what is inconsistent with net neutrality.

The post does make one good point:

> government regulators...won't allow another company [besides Comcast] to come in and lay a fiber optic network unless that company agrees to lay fiber everywhere -- even the poor areas of town

This is a good point, but it's completely separate from the Comcast-Netflix question. I agree that governments should not expect for-profit corporations to provide a service that isn't profitable. If governments want to make sure that everybody has Internet access, then governments should provide it themselves.

And local governments have indeed tried to do exactly that--to build municipal fiber networks that cover entire communities. The problem is that every time a local government tries to do that, Comcast and the other major ISPs have kittens and say that they will be driven out of business and file lawsuits.

This tells me that the corporations actually prefer the current regulatory regime, because it allows them to buy protection from competition. If we had a sane court system, that wouldn't matter too much since the lawsuits would just be thrown out; but that doesn't happen.

... but when the government starts rolling out Internet service, major ISPs lobby for laws to prevent it. The major ISPs can't say "Woe is us, we have to roll out service to unprofitable areas," then turn around and say, "Government, don't you dare service those people for us!"

It comes across like those years where the RIAA would argue to government that their business was falling apart and making music copying a criminal offense was the only way that the music industry wouldn't fall apart in a year. Then they would turn to investors and talk about how swimmingly their business was going, and how there was nothing to worry about.

Yes, this is true, and I should have mentioned it in addition to mentioning the lawsuits they file. I think something like 20 states now have laws prohibiting local municipalities from installing their own networks, passed due to ISP lobbying.

Edit: to downvoters, menace means one who causes peril. How is my usage incorrect? The parent is spreading incorrect facts and encouraging internet fast lanes. That is perilous.

// *proverbial