[diminoten]

I want a legislative solution that doesn't stab me in the back, which is what I think I'm going to get if we don't talk these things out.

I don't think it's as simple as, "No more peering agreements" (the internet infrastructure would be overloaded) or "every ISP must accept all peering agreements" (one-sided peering agreements are something that needs to be addressed somehow -- Netflix can't keep flooding Comcast's network with impunity).

I absolutely don't want to pay extra to my ISP just to watch Netflix in HD, but I don't want to have my Netflix degraded to SD just because Comcast and Netflix aren't legally allowed to make deals together anymore. There's a middle ground here, and everyone seems to be ignoring it.

People seem to have a chicken little view of this, and won't accept any dissent or disagreement whatsoever. Look at how you wrote what you did! You just threw in like 5 or 6 very uncertain things, and pretended like they're undeniable fact. That's not how a discussion happens.

It's too bad Hacker News doesn't appear to be a place where a discussion can take place. It's sad, because if we can't get our heads out of our asses about this, there's zero chance anyone in congress has a hope of doing so.

[pdonis]

> Netflix can't keep flooding Comcast's network with impunity

You mean, Comcast's customers can't keep causing Netflix to flood Comcast's network with impunity. Netflix only sends traffic that Comcast's customers request. I don't think the issue was a "one-sided peering agreement"; I think this issue was Comcast using a monopoly position to extract more rent. Your own next comment explains why:

> I absolutely don't want to pay extra to my ISP just to watch Netflix in HD

In other words, Comcast's customers don't want to pay for the extra bandwidth to watch Netflix in HD, so Comcast is trying to get Netflix to pay instead. Which, of course, means Comcast's customers will end up paying anyway, by paying more to Netflix...what was it you said you didn't want to pay for, again?

[diminoten]

What?

Why should the cost of Netflix traffic be put on all of Comcast's customers, instead of just the ones with Netflix?

The solution is to charge Netflix. That way, Netflix customers are the only ones paying for the extra traffic, in the form of price increases, instead of Comcast customers who don't pay for Netflix at all.

This is like business 101, why is this even an argument?

[pdonis]

> why is this even an argument?

Because Netflix is not the only application that requires more bandwidth than Comcast' network can support in high volume. So what will end up happening is that Comcast will get paid multiple times for the same bandwidth, because they will pull the same sort of scam that The Producers did: sell the same "bandwidth" to ten different applications, so they get paid ten times for a network upgrade that they only actually have to do once.

What's more, it's not always predictable what applications will need more bandwidth. Forcing individual applications to make individual deals with ISPs to get faster service puts a huge roadblock in the way of new services.

Finally, as I posted in another response to you upthread, Comcast and other ISPs have been extracting monopoly rents for years, and a major reason why they were allowed to do that was their own claim that they were going to use that extra money to keep the capability of their networks in line with demand. They have not done that. Why should we users now have to pay for something we already paid for?

[diminoten]

> Because Netflix is not the only application that requires more bandwidth than Comcast' network can support in high volume.

Netflix and YouTube, but the argument is the same. Why should people who don't use Netflix and YouTube pay for the upgrades that help only users who make use of these things? If I don't use any streaming video services, why should my money go to upgrading the systems those services need?

As for the monopoly discussion, that's different than this one, though ultimately it does effect this (if there were alternatives, we'd just all move over to them and Comcast would rot).

I explained already, multiple times, why this makes sense. Once you assume the costs will all get passed onto users, then why should I, Comcast customer who doesn't have Netflix, have to pay for upgrades that ONLY help out Netflix users? If the costs are shifted to Comcast, then that's what happens - EVERYONE pays for Netflix. If the costs are shifted to Netflix, then only the users who actually HAVE Netflix have to pay.

[pdonis]

> Netflix and YouTube

And multiplayer online games, and others that have been mentioned in this thread, and... The basic error you are making here is to think that the set of applications with these bandwidth requirements is small and easily predictable. It isn't. And it will get less and less so as time goes on.

> Why should people who don't use Netflix and YouTube pay for the upgrades that help only users who make use of these things?

They shouldn't, and they aren't. They just buy a cheaper, lower bandwidth Internet plan from their ISP. They're doing that already--certainly I am. I don't want or need Netflix so I don't pay Comcast for that level of bandwidth.

If your reply is that that money still ends up going to pay for network upgrades that I don't need, first of all, if that were really true, Comcast wouldn't have had to try to charge Netflix for the privilege of faster connections, because, as I said before, they would have actually been using the monopoly rents they've been extracting for the purpose for which they were intended--network upgrades to keep pace with demand.

But more importantly, network upgrades that increase aggregate bandwidth benefit everybody, not just Netflix or Youtube users. Except for the "last mile" connection to each individual house (which is not affected by deals like the Comcast-Netflix deal), everybody's traffic travels over the same network, and network upgrades speed up all that traffic. Which is precisely what net neutrality is trying to preserve, and what Comcast charging Netflix for faster connections does not preserve.

In other words, your claim that passing the costs on to users will make everyone pay for Netflix will only come true if we allow ISPs to privilege Netflix traffic over other traffic. Otherwise everyone is just paying for increased aggregate bandwidth from which everyone benefits. And if everyone pays just for the bandwidth they need, what's the problem? Everyone then contributes their fair share to keeping up the network that everyone uses.

[bitJericho]

So let me get this straight, you want netflix in HD, but you don't want to pay for it? Who's going to pay for it if not you?

[diminoten]

I already pay for it.

I pay Netflix in the form of a monthly subscription, and I pay Comcast to deliver me "blast" Internet speeds of 100mbps.

An HD stream is well below 100mbps, so I expect to be able to stream Netflix.

[pdonis]

> I pay Comcast to deliver me "blast" Internet speeds of 100mbps

No, you pay Comcast to "try" to deliver 100mbps. If they feel like it. And if nobody else on your street is also watching Netflix in HD. And...

If you disagree, please show me where in your Comcast contract the service level guarantee is.

[diminoten]

So every single Comcast customer should have to pay for what just the Netflix customers use?

That makes sense...

[pdonis]

> So every single Comcast customer should have to pay for what just the Netflix customers use?

How did you get that from what I said? I was merely pointing out that you are not paying Comcast for guaranteed bandwidth; you're only paying for some nominal bandwidth that isn't actually guaranteed. That's true regardless of what the bandwidth is used for.

But that doesn't mean every Comcast customer has to pay for the same nominal bandwidth; AFAIK Comcast, like pretty much every ISP, has several "tiers" of service with different nominal bandwidths. If you don't need to watch Netflix, you pay for a lower tier of service.

The real question is: would you be willing to pay Comcast more for bandwidth that was guaranteed, instead of just nominal? If the answer were "yes", then Comcast could just charge its Netflix customers, who really want the guaranteed bandwidth, more, and use the proceeds to upgrade its network. But from what you've posted in this thread so far, I would guess your answer is "no", because you think you're already paying Netflix for the service, when in fact you're only paying Netflix for access to its content; you're not paying them for the bandwidth you actually need to watch the content, because they don't provide you bandwidth, Comcast does.

The fact that Comcast is going after Netflix for that money instead of its customers would seem to indicate that Comcast thinks the answer is "no" too; they think (apparently correctly) that their customers either don't realize or don't care that the Comcast network they are currently paying for is not sufficient to stream Netflix content to the number of Comcast customers that want to watch it. So since, from Comcast's point of view, they can't get their customers to pay for upgrading their network to handle Netflix traffic in high volume, they're trying to get Netflix to pay instead. Which ultimately means the customers (i.e., you) are going to pay anyway, since Netflix is going to pass on the increased cost of accessing Comcast's (and other ISPs') network somehow.

(Btw, please bear in mind that I'm stating all this from Comcast's point of view, but that doesn't mean I agree with Comcast's point of view. From my point of view, Comcast should already have been upgrading its network, using the extra money they've been getting by extracting monopoly rents for many years now. But the fact is that they haven't, so there is now a capability gap that needs to be filled somehow. Filling it by allowing Comcast to charge Netflix for faster access to its network just means Comcast's customers end up paying, as I said above. Net neutrality is at least an attempt to make ISPs, instead of users, pay for the upgrades they should have already done but didn't.)

[bitJericho]

Oh sure that's no problem, once netflix pays comcast.

[diminoten]

Which makes sense, given the lopsidedness of traffic in the peering agreement.

And it's also what they're doing, currently. So yay for that.

[bitJericho]

Why would that make sense when you the customer want to retrieve traffic at an advertised rate from a company you're paying?

Surely netflix also pays for traffic at their advertised rate from their ISP. What's the problem? Oh yeah, comcast et al want to be greedy.

[diminoten]

What makes sense about a free peering agreement where only one party benefits?