[rjvbk]

>ALICE fails to adequately peer with CAROL’s autonomous network and calls it a feature.

It also works the other way around: CAROL does not want to pay ALICE to have premium access.

Also, laughable that you call me a shill. Seems like the most used argument when you don't agree with someone. I'm not even American. So your "BOB can't switch ISPs" does not even apply here.

[deno]

> It also works the other way around: CAROL does not want to pay ALICE to have premium access.

How does this logically follow? CAROL advertises fixed downlink/uplink connection to any autonomous network. How is it “premium access” to deliver on what you are actually advertising?

It’s like selling SSD drives and then saying oh yeah but if you store video files in this particular video codec they will play at only 15 fps unless the codec vendor pays us extra for a firmware update.

> So your "BOB can't switch ISPs" does not even apply here.

It applies to the particular Netflix/neutrality debate.

[reitanqild]

> also works the other way around: CAROL does not want to pay ALICE to have premium access.

As others have mentioned there is no extra "premium" access needed.

Netflix pays for their whole upstream, probably a bit extra for redundant uplinks etc.

Customers pay for the entire downstream.

Everyone in between just have to accept the bits and forward them within reasonable time (Netflix has some caching in the client so it shouldn't be to hard unless someone has oversold their capacity.)

> Also, laughable that you call me a shill.

I looked at your recent comment history and I agree.

That said you really seem to defend an undefendable practice to the point where I understand where people get that idea from.

So I'd rather guess you enjoy annoying people on the internet to see them get mad.

[matz1]

The way I see it is net neutrality is very unfair to the isp. It creates unnecessary burden to the isp. Of course Isp will hate it and will fight for it as much as their can.

[deno]

Those ISPs can only fight this “burden” by taking advantage of their unfair monopoly. If there was an actual free market competition there would be no need for net neutrality in the first place.

BOB could just switch to using DAVE’s ISP service, who would be happy to connect him with CAROL’s AN without any throttling.

[matz1]

Its not the ISP fault if they are the monopoly.

[deno]

Wouldn’t you agree those ISPs are very well compensated for this “burden” by not having to compete?

[IOT_Apprentice]

IT is their fault when they block competition in the marketplace and try anything they can to prevent cities to open up the market to competition.

[matz1]

Its in their best interest to block/prevent competition.

[reitanqild]

What extra burden?

They get paid by customer to deliver bits.

The only extra burdens I see is the "burden" of 1) not double dipping and 2) not overselling their offerings.

[matz1]

> What extra burden?

All the work to make sure it comply with net neutrality.

[reitanqild]

AFAIK in more than one case that has been the burden of:

not taking extra steps to throttle Netflix,

i.e.

the burden of not double dipping.

I think few people are arguing that Netflix should get special treatment, only that:

* ISPs should treat all bits the same (unless I as the receiver has asked for something else).

* ISPs should have enough capacity to serve their customers.

[matz1]

It maybe that case but regardless, net neutrality disadvantage to the isp. Of course they are not happy with it.

[Karunamon]

Correction - make it comply with Title 2. Net neutrality isn't what the FCC killed, Title 2 (which is still a massive blob of legislation, even if you discount the stuff in forbearance) is a set of laws that ensure a kind of neutrality.