[backprojection]

I'm not sure you've addressed eridius'a comments. I understand what you're saying about peering, but I think his/her point is that ISP customers pay ISPs not to care about peering.

I think that's generally the point that neutrality activists make, that in large par the internet works because users have equal access to any network, regardless of the asymmetry inherent to that access, and that users are willing to pay for the cost of that asymmetry.

If Comcast needs more money to properly connect it's users to Netflix, then that's fine, charge me more money. I'll gladly pay directly for real infrastructure upgrades. But forcing that revenue to go through Netflix first, you're fundamentally changing a key feature of the Internet.

The fact that these issues go away if there is no asymmetry (peering) doesn't seem so relevant.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> I understand what you're saying about peering, but I think his/her point is that ISP customers pay ISPs not to care about peering.

Nothing in their contract with Comcast suggests that they've somehow bought "the right not to care about or understand peering".

So if they think they've bought that, then the problem really is one of "stupid customers".

Do you know that I absolutely loathe Comcast? I hate coming off like I'm defending them. I want the company abolished, its assets sold off at auction, its shareholders prohibited from ever investing in shares again, its executives sent to prison to rot for the rest of their lives.

There are many bad things about Comcast. We don't need to make up lies about them.

> If Comcast needs more money to properly connect it's users to Netflix, then that's fine, charge me more money.

Then they're hit with accusations of violating network neutrality (if they only charge Netflix users), or of price-gouging if they charge everyone.

This was already taken off the table by the same people who are rabble-rousing everyone.

> But forcing that revenue to go through Netflix first, you're fundamentally changing a key feature of the Internet.

By not forcing it, you're changing a key feature of the internet: settlement-free peering.

This is why my original, top comment explains how things have changed and peering may not work anymore. It's impossible to come to a resolution where all parties feel as if they've been treated fairly.

And that's a much bigger problem than anything anyone else is talking about. It's a problem that won't go away if we ignore it.

[Goronmon]

Then they're hit with accusations of violating network neutrality (if they only charge Netflix users)

I'm not sure why you think this is a 'bad thing'.

Comcast sells users bandwidth (X download, Y upload). It doesn't sell "Access to static and dynamic web sites, but not video streaming services." If the customer is using less than X and less than Y, why does the type of traffic matter? If Comcast doesn't want users using the amount bandwidth they paid for, then they need to be more upfront about that in the plan pricing (lower the bandwidth, or increase the price).

That's what people are asking for. Just like I shouldn't expect my cell phone bill to increase because I called across state lines instead of local, I shouldn't expect my internet bill to increase just because I used the bandwidth for watching Netflix as opposed to something like seeding Linux distributions.