[NoMoreNicksLeft]

> No, but they're obligated to get those GB to the consumer in some frickin way, b

No, they're not obligated.

Not legally.

Not contractually.

Not morally.

Consumer internet is a "best effort service". If Netflix refuses to acquire sufficient connectivity, then it's not Comcast's fault.

This is really simple. You should get it after I repeat it a few dozen times.

> because they have a signed contract with the consumer obligating them to get them their damn bytes.

It's an implied contract, but the problem's still the same: you never read it.

> Who cares if it's netflix or 1,000 myriad other sites. The only reason netflix is an issue is because they're a big enough target to extort.

The only reason it's an issue because only Netflix is so big that the existing connection is insufficient. When you subtract the Netflix traffic, the link's not saturated.

[jbooth]

So your argument is that internet providers are perfectly within their rights to cash your check and then not provide internet service, and that's all perfectly ok and the way things should be? I'm not talking about the lack of an SLA when temporary outages happen, or temporary service degradation as they roll out new infrastructure to cope with traffic growth, I'm talking about consistently and systemically not living up to their end of the bargain and no intention to fix it. Complete lack of "best effort".

Subtract netflix traffic and more traffic will come from someplace else. The internet's not going away, usage is growing across the board, and netflix is just (one of) the first to hit our current traffic peaks, which will themselves look small in a few years.

If ISPs can't deliver that bandwidth at current prices, they should A) look at whatever korea, japan and northern europe are doing right, and B) failing that, increase prices until they can deliver the service they're charging for. This is really simple. You should get it.. well, you won't, probably. But the rest of us won't stand for it.