[notdonspaulding]

> "It seems like it would be great if they could figure out a mutually beneficial situation, but I guess I fail to see the moral hazard."

This article in particular is making the argument that at the level that L3, Comcast, AT&T, Netflix and others are operating, it's almost always mutually beneficial to peer. The article also makes the point that the capital expenditure is negligible compared to the benefit to both sides.

The moral hazard here is that Comcast is (shrewdly) taking the bet that their customers won't blame them for what appears to be Netflix's reduced performance. If there was actual competition in the local ISP space, customers would catch on that the performance is only worse on Comcast's network, but that's not the world we live in.

> Barring, of course, the monopoly argument, I see no moral hazard here.

You can't just ignore the monopoly argument. There's nothing inherently unfair about a monopoly, but if you use it to extort money from people then its no surprise that people call you out on it. In the Good Old Days, you'd see monopolies try to squash their competitors. This is more nuanced than that. Monopolistic-extortion-action-at-a-distance, if you will.

[wdewind]

> it's almost always mutually beneficial to peer.

But Netflix might be the exception here right?

> You can't just ignore the monopoly argument.

You're right, I'm just trying to disambiguate it from the net neutrality argument, which doesn't seem to actually be relevant here (as Comcast is treating all traffic through those links poorly, not just Netflix traffic). If it is truly about the monopoly, regulators have different (and thankfully more powerful) tools to change Comcast's behavior, whereas using net neutrality seems like a losing (and misleading) fight.

[AnthonyMouse]

> But Netflix might be the exception here right?

The mutual benefit still exists. Comcast benefits from peering with Netflix because it allows Comcast customers to access Netflix. Comcast is just playing chicken because they know their monopoly position allows them to hold out longer than peers with actual competitors.

> You're right, I'm just trying to disambiguate it from the net neutrality argument, which doesn't seem to actually be relevant here (as Comcast is treating all traffic through those links poorly, not just Netflix traffic).

The network neutrality issue is that Comcast is intentionally causing congestion on all the links that Netflix traffic could possibly use. The traffic for Comcast's own competing video service offerings don't have to traverse the congested links, nor does traffic from anyone who Comcast provides with a separate uncongested link in exchange for a toll or some other business consideration. That's practically the definition of a network neutrality issue.

[3minus1]

> intentionally causing congestion

Not upgrading their connection is not the same thing as intentionally causing congestion. Especially when the connection would be fine if it weren't for the massive share of Netflix traffic.

[designgauge]

The massive Netflix traffic that I, as a Comcast subscriber, is requesting.

If we're all all drawing too much data over the network, upgrade it and charge us more! I have no higher bandwidth options than Comcast's cable internet service. Huge lack of competition in California.

[osi]

Comcast wants to switch people from http://www.comcast.com/peering to http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true

The former is what Level 3 does, the latter Netflix.

[masklinn]

> But Netflix might be the exception here right?

Netflix is not infrastructure, they're not peers, they're Level 3 clients.

[pdonis]

Actually, that's no longer true under the deal Netflix recently worked out with Comcast:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/02/23...