[click170]

1) This point is silly because it is made moot by Netflix configuring the client to upload as fast as possible whenever they're watching a movie, which I think we can agree would benefit nobody.

Yes, it's true that this is how peering agreements have worked in the past, but if that's not sustainable going forward maybe another agreement needs to be reached.

2) What you say may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that nearly every market in the US has but one single ISP provider. That sure feels a lot like a monopoly to me.

3) I largely agree with you here, except that I would clarify that you can force them to maintain speed between the interconnect. Both the interconnect and the ISP have to have capacity to spare, you can't under-provision your link to the interconnect and then point the finger back at them.

[FireBeyond]

You can't give your end users vastly asymmetrical data pipes (cable/DSL), and then complain that you don't need to equitably handle traffic for a service then because the data flow isn't symmetrical. At the very least, it's disingenuous. You -know- your traffic flow to the greater internet is asymmetric but you want to bitch that other flows to you are asymmetric. Do as I say, not as I do.

[rhino369]

1) Netflix could try, but ISPs would be well within their rights to block Netflix attempting generate useless traffic on their network. Even net neutrality rules would allow that for that type of action.

They could shift to a sort of bittorrent distributed system if they wanted to, but that is a huge shift in models and not really worth talking about.

2) IIRC 79% have two providers. Their local telecom and cable company.

3) You can but it's a crappy policy that would destroy the ISPs negotiating position. Potentially even letting the transit providers charge the ISP, like they already charge small ISPs.

A) Remember, Cogent and L3 are still selling Netflix and all their other customers, space on interconnect links that it doesn't have.

In what other business can you sell your client service and then fail to deliver and just blame your supplier for not giving you a cheap deal.

B)If you are going to force free peering on ISPs they should at least be able to charge the peer the actual cost to set up the peer point.

[click170]

> In what other business can you sell your client service and then fail to deliver and just blame your supplier for not giving you a cheap deal.

Isn't this exactly what the problem ISPs are demanding, which is what we're up in arms about? They're trying to double dip by getting their customers to pay and trying to extort Netflix and Level3 as well.

At least we can both agree that this is wrong.

[msandford]

Precisely. Comcast sells me X megabits per second and then, if it's to Netflix, refuses to deliver it. Anywhere else? Sure, no problem! But Netflix? 2-3Mbps tops. And I'm paying for 50Mbps. And if I VPN to ANYWHERE, magically I can get full speed, full quality Netflix without any problem.

What Comcast is (and other ISPs are) doing is intentionally not spending the $10k-$50k that it would take to upgrade the peering with Cogent or Level3 so that they can deliver to me the bandwidth that they ostensibly have promised but which they are contractually not obliged to provide. And people think that's shitty, because it sure seems like a monopolist abusing their position of power. Perhaps because it is.