[danielweber]

Even if I bought all your negative emotions about ISPs[1], none of your scare scenarios are at all about the ISP charging more money to the customer depending on what websites they go to.[2]

Even right now, with whatever asshattery Verizon is doing, they haven't even peeped one single word about making the customers of theirs that use Netflix pay more money to Verizon.

"These people do bad things, so you should believe these other bad things I say they might someday do." Lots of people have made very good careers out of enraging the rabble that way.

[1] Your first link uses a bunch of Google searches as evidence, so I can't be 100% sure what it's talking about. But there's a decent chance it's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709910 forex

[2] The second article is about AT&T wanting to get the hell out of the wired communication business. Investors hate the wired business. One way or another you have to pay for that infrastructure, and talking about applying utility-level regulation to the companies eager to leave is not going to draw in new dollars.

[mbreese]

It isn't that the ISPs will force their customers to pay more for access to third-party services, but rather that they will selectively manage their network so that certain third-party services will have sub-optimal data rates. I'm sure that Verizon would rather those customers use their PPV service (or another more-favored service) rather than use Netflix. And because Verizon is making it more painful for people to use Netflix, that is likely happening. This entire thread started out talking about how Netflix is informing their mutual customers where exactly the blame for their degraded service should fall.

To use Comcast as an example, now Netflix is paying Comcast for a connection to their customers as opposed to Cogent (which should have had good bandwidth between them and Comcast). As a result, Netflix will have to charge their customers more. So, don't think that just because the ISPs won't be charging doesn't mean that the customers won't have to pay more.

Now, you could make an argument that it's good that Netflix customers will have to pay more for their service because they were clogging the pipes for everyone else. The problem is that this is a very slippery slope and could lead to a balkanization of the Internet, very similar to the tiered access presented in the JPG you so adamantly disagreed with. What happens when your ISP (because you only have one choice) doesn't have a peering agreement with the network hosting Service X? Sure, you could use Service X, but your experience wouldn't be very good. But good news for you! They do have an agreement with Service Y that will provide you with almost the same data as Service X, but it costs a little more. Did I mention that Service Y kicks back 20% of your monthly service fee back to your ISP for "hosting"? There are plenty of ways that the ISPs can get more of your money. Not all of it involves getting it from you directly.

[danielweber]

The reason that asinine JPEG gets shared so much is because it makes people rage because they think they'll have to sign up ahead of time for any website they might want to visit. If it were accurate -- if it said "$2 of your Netflix subscription goes to paying ISP interconnection costs," people would shrug and say "well, of course Netflix has ISP costs."

Hey, Netflix could charge more to customers of certain ISPs, too. What a nightmare! If I make a JPEG showing that will everyone go nuts and share it on the Facebook and demand Netflix stop fucking with net neutrality? I mean, Netflix might do it.

[x0054]

People who are normally getting <500Kbit connection on a Verizon DSL can get the full 3Mbit connection over a VPN during the same time of day. So, is it that Verizon does not have the capacity, or is it that they are specifically throttling your connection to Netflix? These last miles ISPs get all kinds of benefits for their wire, they get tax benefits, and protection. For instance, they have sued in many cities to keep Google Fiber or other municipal fiber networks out.

I have no idea how this isn't an antitrust case yet. Also, considering that most cable packages cost $80+, and Netflix costs $7, what makes you think that the ISPs will stop at charging Netfix just a few dollars extra per customer. Don't you get it, they don't want to get Netflix to pay them more money, they want to drive Netflix out of business.

I think more so than Netflix, Google has a stake in this. Block youtube and gmail for one month on any ISP that does not sign a Net Neutrality pledge, and see what happens. If black mail is good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

[zero_intp]

You make big claims about what other people perceive. This is a straw-man. Clearly it makes /you/ rage, but I suspect it is because it threatens you with cognitive dissidence.

I've experienced this with other MSO engineers. Some MSO engineers even argue that charging a content provider to access their mutual customers is not a rent seeking behavior.

[ZachPruckowski]

>they haven't even peeped one single word about making the customers of theirs that use Netflix pay more money to Verizon.

Not directly, but if the ISPs charge Netflix a fee that forces Netflix to raise prices for its customers to re-coup those costs (or hypothetically pass it as a surcharge on to its customers on a given ISP) they've essentially taken that money from their customers who also use Netflix. That the money went through an extra set of hands first is a mis-direct. That non-Verizon Netflix customers might be impacted ends up getting cancelled out if most of the major ISPs do the same thing. If Netflix doesn't charge a fee to re-coup those costs, then Netflix has less money to make rights agreements with, and I've got less content to watch. No matter what, I as a Verizon/Netflix customer lose.