Net neutrality non-neutrality
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I don't care about this. Having them to compete is much more important IMO.
I agree.
And we don't need NN to do that.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Not if the people who built the roads made them to enough capacity. And if they didn't, this is not the driver's fault.
It never was.
In the Netflix example, Netflix was being asked to upgrade the road because they were using too much of it. Netflix didn't think they should, so the middleman ISP slowed them down.
-
@xaade No, we need to nationalize the infrastructure if we want to bring true competition. You think that's more politically feasible than net neutrality?
-
Nationalized infrastructure brings true competition! In Venezuela, every trip to the grocery store is Black Friday!
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
No, we need to nationalize the infrastructure if we want to bring true competition.
Great.
Who pays for repairs and improvements after that.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
In the Netflix example, Netflix was being asked to upgrade the road because they were using too much of it. Netflix didn't think they should, so the middleman ISP slowed them down.
Who is this straw "middleman ISP" you keep hypothesizing up? It was the last-mile ISPs, who deliberately let their peering get congested to extort money from Netflix.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Great.
Who pays for repairs and improvements after that.
Who pays for repairs and improvements on any other public utilities?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Great.
Who pays for repairs and improvements after that.
Who pays for repairs and improvements on any other public utilities?
Those public utilities actually built that infrastructure.
And trust me, the government has little incentive to improve infrastructure. Coming from someone who has power outages every time the wind blows.
If we want to nationalize the infrastructure, the government will need to purchase it.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I mean it in the sense of driving down the middle of the road is hogging the road.
- In other words, what you mean is nothing at all like what you actually said.
You just have to learn how to read between the lines on a @xaade post. I'm not sure I would have called what he was referring to as a monopoly. No doubt I would have shortened it to, "FREE STUFF!"
- Not if the people who built the roads made them to enough capacity. And if they didn't, this is not the driver's fault.
In this case, Netflix chose a road provider who didn't have enough capacity. The lack of capacity of the road provider not their "fault" except that they did pick that provider (I believe...right?).
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade No, we need to nationalize the infrastructure if we want to bring true competition. You think that's more politically feasible than net neutrality?
I hope something that Orwellian is not as feasible as net neutrality. But two shitty things are just two shitty things.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
In the Netflix example, Netflix was being asked to upgrade the road because they were using too much of it. Netflix didn't think they should, so the middleman ISP slowed them down.
Who is this straw "middleman ISP" you keep hypothesizing up? It was the last-mile ISPs, who deliberately let their peering get congested to extort money from Netflix.
It's like you've never read anything @izzion wrote on the subject. Incredible!
-
@xaade "Nationalize" is probably not exactly the right word, as it would most likely be owned locally, much like any other public utilities. But it carries the right basic understanding.
Again, this is a hypothetical, and something that I specifically said is not likely to actually happen. But I don't see any way to get strong competition without it, because Internet infrastructure, like utilities, is something highly prone to natural monopolies.
Do you disagree with this reasoning, in the abstract, setting aside any judgments about whether or not it would be a good thing?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
And if they didn't, this is not the driver's fault.
It absolutely was the driver's fault.
You're saying it wasn't the fault of the customers waiting on their FedEx deliveries.
This is true.
But those customers should choose another mail service if FedEx is being held up on the highway because they're taking too much of it.
The real equivalent situation would be FedEx being asked to pay for an expansion of the highway because they're 70% of the trucks on the tollroad.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
In this case, Netflix chose a road provider who didn't have enough capacity. The lack of capacity of the road provider not their "fault" except that they did pick that provider (I believe...right?).
Nope. They chose an Internet backbone provider, literally the very definition of "did, in fact, have enough capacity." It was the local roads that refused to pay a pittance (on the order of a few tens of thousands of dollars) to upgrade their peering, so they could extort Netflix over it.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
In this case, Netflix chose a road provider who didn't have enough capacity. The lack of capacity of the road provider not their "fault" except that they did pick that provider (I believe...right?).
Nope. They chose an Internet backbone provider, literally the very definition of "did, in fact, have enough capacity." It was the local roads that refused to pay a pittance (on the order of a few tens of thousands of dollars) to upgrade their peering, so they could extort Netflix over it.
Dang...I gotta stop banging my head against your willful ignorance.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The real equivalent situation would be FedEx being asked to pay for an expansion of the highway because they're 70% of the trucks on the tollroad.
Which would be stupid for two reasons. First, because toll roads are inherently stupid, because roads are paid for by tax money anyway. And second, because if they're the majority of the trucks on the road, then they're already paying the majority of the gas taxes that provide revenue for the roads. The money is already there, and it is not FedEx's fault if the people maintaining the roads aren't spending that revenue on increasing capacity like they should be.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Do you disagree with this reasoning, in the abstract, setting aside any judgments about whether or not it would be a good thing?
Yes.
Oil companies will run their own fiber to their remote devices. Netflix could do the same, but chooses not to. Netflix is benefiting from a cheaper price by using another companies infrastructure. Instead of paying every company along every mile, ISPs cooperate so that Netflix pays one ISP.
Netflix was taking up too much of the infrastructure, and ISPs down the line couldn't get the money from Netflix's ISP to improve, so they asked Netflix directly.
Netflix said no.
Rather than let the entire internet go to shit for their customers, those ISPs throttled Netflix so other services could get through.
Netflix wasn't paying their fair share, and the ISPs failed to cooperate to charge Netflix for it.
Net Neutrality wouldn't solve this problem. It would just either keep the internet as complete shit for everything, or the customers ISPs would have raised their prices, making the cost of internet go up for the end users.
But Netflix has lobbied and convinced internet users that they shouldn't have to pay for using up more of the internet using scare tactics of a dystopian internet that doesn't exist.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It was the local roads that refused to pay a pittance (on the order of a few tens of thousands of dollars) to upgrade their peering, so they could extort Netflix over it.
You don't get it.
Either way the end customers were going to pay for the infrastructure.
Your way, everyone has to pay for Netflix users to benefit.
Their way, only the Netflix users would have paid for using up more bandwidth.
This is what @boomzilla means by FREE STUFF.
-
@boomzilla Funny, that's what I think every time you drop into one of these conversations. It's like you are literally incapable of seeing anything outside the walls of your own ideology. I've been studying this issue for well over a decade--long before Netflix had anything to do with it, which is why I find it particularly stupid when people say it's all about Netflix. I've been watching how it unfolds and familiarizing myself with the reality of the issue, and the things you say, the points you focus on, they don't show any awareness of anything relevant.
It's like if I was trying to talk to someone about programming and they kept going on and on about USB vs. PS2 keyboards: slightly related to the issue if you look at it funny and squint hard enough, but not actually relevant.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla Funny, that's what I think every time you drop into one of these conversations. It's like you are literally incapable of seeing anything outside the walls of your own ideology. I've been studying this issue for well over a decade--long before Netflix had anything to do with it, which is why I find it particularly stupid when people say it's all about Netflix. I've been watching how it unfolds and familiarizing myself with the reality of the issue, and the things you say, the points you focus on, they don't show any awareness of anything relevant.
It's like if I was trying to talk to someone about programming and they kept going on and on about USB vs. PS2 keyboards: slightly related to the issue if you look at it funny and squint hard enough, but not actually relevant.
Because everything YOU complained about could be resolved with anti-trust.
Whereas this Netflix issue, people are misinformed because they think NN would have solved it. When NN would have only increased the price of internet for everyone unjustly.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
First, because toll roads are inherently stupid, because roads are paid for by tax money anyway.
You just can't help saying something stupid in every post, can you? #NotAllTollRoads. Also, some roads where the original construction was paid with tax money, toll collection goes towards maintenance.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I've been studying this issue for well over a decade--long before Netflix had anything to do with it, which is why I find it particularly stupid when people say it's all about Netflix.
I've never said it's all about Netflix. I'm just saying that you're dead wrong on that particular subject every time it comes up.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
...and the things you say, the points you focus on, they don't show any awareness of anything relevant.
At least we have the same views of the other person.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It's like if I was trying to talk to someone about programming and they kept going on and on about USB vs. PS2 keyboards: slightly related to the issue if you look at it funny and squint hard enough, but not actually relevant.
I can only explain you saying that about this thread by noting your penchant for
reading comprehension.@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It's like you are literally incapable of seeing anything outside the walls of your own ideology.
Amazing. No, I can see other stuff just fine. I especially notice how many unsupported (not to say contradictory to plain facts) premises you bring up.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Your way, everyone has to pay for Netflix users to benefit.
Their way, only the Netflix users would have paid for using up more bandwidth.ISPs are owned by the same guys that own the cable TV that is being disrupted by Netflix, and they'll charge much more than it's fair bandwidth consumption to prevent that.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Your way, everyone has to pay for Netflix users to benefit.
Their way, only the Netflix users would have paid for using up more bandwidth.It's cute you believe that, but the reality is that the ISPs are owned by the same guys that own the cable TV that is being disrupted by Netflix, and they'll charge much more than it's fair bandwidth consumption to prevent that.
Say it with me.
Anti-trust.
-
@xaade Anti-trust never worked, NN did.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade Anti-trust never worked, NN did.
NN hasn't been around long enough to fair as spectacularly as anti-trust. Give it time.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Um, actually, it's common for toll roads to charge different rates for different types of vehicles.
On the bridges around here, I get to pay 3x what a car does when I tow my tiny 1300# 12ft popup trailer. (With FastTrak, it's $5 per axle - except 2 axles is only 5. The Golden Gate bridge is more: 6.75/axle, same 2-axle exception)
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
because toll roads are inherently stupid
The gas tax isn't enough for the toll road. That's why it's a toll road. So that only the people using that road pay for the extra cost of the infrastructure.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
then they're already paying the majority of the gas taxes that provide revenue for the roads
Which is there for maintaining the roads, not improving them.
-
If you're for Net Neutrality, you're for flat income tax.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Amazing. No, I can see other stuff just fine.
Slightly off-topic: I was reading an article that referred to the Haidt book (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion) and one of the comments talked about a study that someone had done. For the controls, they had a bunch of people self-identify on the liberal/conservative axis that I keep saying is woefully incomplete, then fill out a questionnaire. Then they had a second group of people do the same self-identification, but fill out the questionnaire as if they were a member of the other group. The results were interesting. As expected, neither side was 100% accurate, but the conservatives were better at predicting how the liberals would answer than the other way around.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Anti-trust never worked
It was used to break up the railroads and Standard Oil, for starters.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Anti-trust never worked, NN did.
Laws are like violence. If they're not working for you, it's because you're not using enough of them.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Oil companies will run their own fiber to their remote devices. Netflix could do the same, but chooses not to.
Are you actually hearing what you are saying?!? Netflix does not have "its own remote devices." It has people like you and me connected to the public internet.
Netflix is benefiting from a cheaper price by using another companies infrastructure. Instead of paying every company along every mile, ISPs cooperate so that Netflix pays one ISP.
Yes, exactly like anyone else connected to the public internet.
Netflix was taking up too much of the infrastructure, and ISPs down the line couldn't get the money from Netflix's ISP to improve, so they asked Netflix directly.
Netflix said no.
They couldn't get someone else to pay them for doing what they should have been doing anyway as part of the ordinary course of doing business, so they tried to get a different someone else to pay them for it instead. They, unsurprisingly, also said no, because it is not their job.
The local ISPs were already being paid for that bandwidth, and the infrastructure that supports it, by their own customers. Period. If they weren't allocating that revenue to improving their infrastructure to meet increased demand, this is not the fault of the increased demand, it is the ISPs' fault. Period.
Rather than let the entire internet go to shit for their customers, those ISPs throttled Netflix so other services could get through.
Yes, no one is disputing this.
But remember that this did not come out of nowhere. They had promised enough capacity to deal with Netflix to their customers. Why? Because it was beginning to become mainstream already. Anyone could have seen years ago that they needed to upgrade to actually get that capacity. If it hadn't been Netflix, it would have been someone else, and it would have happened at approximately the same time as it actually did happen. The ISPs knew they didn't have that capacity, and they had neglected for years to build it out, because this is what monopolists do. Then they decided to try and get someone else to pay for it because this is what monopolists do, even though they were already being paid for that bandwidth by their customers.
This was a case of blatant double-dipping, of a monopolist trying to throw its weight around, nothing more.
Netflix wasn't paying their fair share, and the ISPs failed to cooperate to charge Netflix for it.
Don't be absurd. Netflix was paying its fair share to Netflix's ISP, which is the only obligation they had. Comcast was already being paid by Comcast's customers, and they had an obligation to use that money to make available the bandwidth that they were being paid for.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
It was the local roads that refused to pay a pittance (on the order of a few tens of thousands of dollars) to upgrade their peering, so they could extort Netflix over it.
You don't get it.
Either way the end customers were going to pay for the infrastructure.
They already had. Comcast was simply refusing to use the money they had already received to pay for necessary infrastructure updates, preferring to take it as profit.
Your way, everyone has to pay for Netflix users to benefit.
And what's the problem with that? You know why Netflix was taking up so much bandwidth? Because everyone was using it. And if the weren't, they were using Hulu, Amazon Prime, YouTube, etc. Streaming video did not come out of nowhere.
Their way, only the Netflix users would have paid for using up more bandwidth.
Distinction without a difference.
This is what @boomzilla means by FREE STUFF.
Everyone paying for stuff that everyone using somehow constitutes somebody getting "free stuff?" Yeah, sounds about right for him.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Because everything YOU complained about could be resolved with anti-trust.
How?
The closest parallel I can think of--feel free to point out a better case if there is one--is Ma Bell, and that was resolved in a way that would not have fixed this: by breaking the company up into multiple regional monopolies. The problem here is that we already have multiple regional monopolies, and the high cost of infrastructure build-out means that they are natural monopolies with a high barrier to entry. How would antitrust fix this?
Whereas this Netflix issue, people are misinformed because they think NN would have solved it. When NN would have only increased the price of internet for everyone unjustly.
And yet somehow it hasn't done that since the Open Internet rules were put in place...
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Which is there for maintaining the roads, not improving them.
Which is why this is a poor analogy. :P
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
. The ISPs knew they didn't have that capacity, and they had neglected for years to build it out, because this is what monopolists do.
ZOMG but you cling to this bullshit really hard.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Don't be absurd. Netflix was paying its fair share to Netflix's ISP, which is the only obligation they had.
What makes you think that? If you believe that, then why do you fault other companies instead of Netflix' ISP?
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Comcast was already being paid by Comcast's customers, and they had an obligation to use that money to make available the bandwidth that they were being paid for.
How do you connect this thought to the peering agreements among backbone providers? That's an honest question, because is seems to be a major short circuit in everything you say about this.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Netflix was paying its fair share to Netflix's ISP
Which they had just changed, to get a lower price. Having changed from a CDN provider, who was already paying interconnection peering charges, to Level 3 who wasn't.
Now, I don't know whether Netflix knowingly pressured Level 3 into giving them a lower rate since Level 3 wasn't paying interconnection charges, or whether Level 3 figured they'd be able to use the cudgel of being the gatekeeper to the #1 service on the Internet to bludgeon carriers into letting them keep free interconnection even after they changed to the usage profile of a CDN. But I sincerely doubt both parties were innocent in the transaction.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Everyone paying for stuff that everyone using somehow constitutes somebody getting "free stuff?" Yeah, sounds about right for him.
Yes, it would, to you. But this only makes sense in your fantasy world.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
ZOMG but you cling to this bullshit really hard.
What, you honestly think streaming video took anyone in the ISP industry by surprise?
What makes you think that? If you believe that, then why do you fault other companies instead of Netflix' ISP?
Because Netflix's ISP had enough capacity to deliver Netflix's traffic. It was the other companies--the last-mile ISPs--that didn't.
How do you connect this thought to the peering agreements among backbone providers? That's an honest question, because is seems to be a major short circuit in everything you say about this.
Why are you suddenly talking about peering among backbone providers, when the issue is about peering between backbone and last-mile ISPs?
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Now, I don't know whether Netflix knowingly pressured Level 3 into giving them a lower rate since Level 3 wasn't paying interconnection charges,
Like...FREE STUFF?
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Which they had just changed, to get a lower price. Having changed from a CDN provider, who was already paying interconnection peering charges, to Level 3 who wasn't.
So they switched to an ISP with better capacity who could give them a better deal, saving their company money, and this is a bad thing?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
What, you honestly think streaming video took anyone in the ISP industry by surprise?
I honestly think your shoulder aliens wrote most of that sentence because it doesn't sound like you're responding to me.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Because Netflix's ISP had enough capacity to deliver Netflix's traffic.
If that were true then there would have been no problem! Seriously, man, you're not even trying.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Why are you suddenly talking about peering among backbone providers, when the issue is about peering between backbone and last-mile ISPs?
Oh, right, I remember now. You refuse to acknowledge that Comcast was doing a lot more than just last mile. Still, I can't understand how you can stand the cognitive dissonance of denying that it was a peering problem.
-
@masonwheeler
When the deal was predicated on knowingly abusing the peering agreements in place, yes. Level 3 had peering agreements with CDN providers and other backbone providers and knew the differences that distinguished the two classifications. And yet they didn't price the fact that they would get reclassified into a CDN provider once they took on Netflix into their deal with Netflix, and then tried to hold traffic hostage until they kept their backbone provider classification. And then when they couldn't pull that off in negotiations, they took it to the court of public opinion & government regulation.
-
@antiquarian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Amazing. No, I can see other stuff just fine.
Slightly off-topic: I was reading an article that referred to the Haidt book (The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion) and one of the comments talked about a study that someone had done. For the controls, they had a bunch of people self-identify on the liberal/conservative axis that I keep saying is woefully incomplete, then fill out a questionnaire. Then they had a second group of people do the same self-identification, but fill out the questionnaire as if they were a member of the other group. The results were interesting. As expected, neither side was 100% accurate, but the conservatives were better at predicting how the liberals would answer than the other way around.
- There are more central conservatives than people believe.
- Conservatives tend to view the divide as less good/evil and more informed/uninformed. (although both concepts exist on either side).
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I honestly think your shoulder aliens wrote most of that sentence because it doesn't sound like you're responding to me.
I said that the ISPs knew it was coming, they knew they didn't have the capacity, and they refused to build out the capacity to meet entirely predictable increases in demand. You responded by calling that "bullshit." How else am I to interpret it, other than "you think streaming video took them by surprise"?
If that were true then there would have been no problem! Seriously, man, you're not even trying.
Are you seriously not aware of the difference between backbone ISPs and last-mile ISPs and the way interconnection works? I have to believe you are, because you mentioned peering above, so I can only assume that this is, yet again, you arguing in bad faith.
Oh, right, I remember now. You refuse to acknowledge that Comcast was doing a lot more than just last mile. Still, I can't understand how you can stand the cognitive dissonance of denying that it was a peering problem.
Of course it was a peering problem, but it was a "problem" entirely of Comcast's making. They deliberately let their interconnection get clogged up, (when resolving it would have cost a few tens of thousands of dollars, nothing more,) in order to extort Netflix for more money. This is quite extensively documented; how do you deal with the cognitive dissonance?
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler
When the deal was predicated on knowingly abusing the peering agreements in place, yes.[citation needed]
Level 3 had peering agreements with CDN providers and other backbone providers and knew the differences that distinguished the two classifications.
Yeah. And a CDN looks nothing like a backbone provider.
And yet they didn't price the fact that they would get reclassified into a CDN provider once they took on Netflix into their deal with Netflix, and then tried to hold traffic hostage until they kept their backbone provider classification.
Yet again, [citation needed]. They remained a provider of tier 1 Internet traffic service, which CDNs do not do. You are saying things that are simply not true.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I said that the ISPs knew it was coming, they knew they didn't have the capacity, and they refused to build out the capacity to meet entirely predictable increases in demand.
Except the rest of the internet worked fine before streaming, and now with streaming their internet is sucking. Why should they distribute the cost of streaming infrastructure to all of their customers, rather than just the people who are using streaming?
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Of course it was a peering problem, but it was a "problem" entirely of Comcast's making. They deliberately let their interconnection get clogged up, (when resolving it would have cost a few tens of thousands of dollars, nothing more,) in order to extort Netflix for more money. This is quite extensively documented; how do you deal with the cognitive dissonance?
And the only customers affected were the customers that chose to stream from Netflix.
I like that model.
Netflix users caused the problem, netflix users pay the price.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Except the rest of the internet worked fine before streaming, and now with streaming their internet is sucking. Why should they distribute the cost of streaming infrastructure to all of their customers, rather than just the people who are using streaming?
First off, once again, distinction without a difference. The reason streaming was using so much bandwidth was because the vast majority of customers were using it.
Second, because you're inappropriately looking forward rather than backwards. They had already been paid for capacity that they were not capable of delivering. If they hadn't used that money to build out their infrastructure to the point of being capable of delivering on their contractual obligations, that's not their customers' fault, nor is it Netflix's.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I said that the ISPs knew it was coming, they knew they didn't have the capacity, and they refused to build out the capacity to meet entirely predictable increases in demand. You responded by calling that "bullshit." How else am I to interpret it, other than "you think streaming video took them by surprise"?
Well, again, the conversation had been about the Netflix thing and I didn't expect you to change the topic of dicsussion to ISPs without telling me.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Are you seriously not aware of the difference between backbone ISPs and last-mile ISPs and the way interconnection works? I have to believe you are, because you mentioned peering above, so I can only assume that this is, yet again, you arguing in bad faith.
I know, it's how you keep a consistent level of cognitive dissonance. Why are you talking about last-mile ISPs here?
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Of course it was a peering problem, but it was a "problem" entirely of Comcast's making. They deliberately let their interconnection get clogged up, (when resolving it would have cost a few tens of thousands of dollars, nothing more,) in order to extort Netflix for more money. This is quite extensively documented; how do you deal with the cognitive dissonance?
It's good that you're letting the contradictions show within the same post. Maybe you'll notice and decide if you want to talk about peering or last-mile ISPs. You also shouldn't let your hatred of Comcast color your analysis here, which it definitely seems to be, because it's not at all clear that the onus was on Comcast.
