Look, you may be focusing on this point too much. I mean, when is anything all bout just one thing? If it really was that simple then this would have been over and done with quite a while ago. So to say that its all about peering is to ignore the reasons why the FCC had stopped Comcast and other ISP’s from throttling Netflix data on their networks.
So lets start out with these two known facts, if we can’t agree on these then we don’t have a conversation:
While the FCC had jurisdiction over ISP’s (to be clear, before it was ruled that they don’t in fact have that jurisdiction), Comcast customers were able to stream Netflix content without any significant limitations. Once the FCC was ruled to not have jurisdiction, and the net neutrality (such as they were) rules they had set were no longer enforceable, Comcast customers began to notice limitations in accessing Netflix services.
If you don’t agree this is true, and the article you previously posted, nor Comcast refute this, then please stop reading and just say so, otherwise you’re just trolling.
(From your perspective we could also reword the problem like this:
In the past Comcast was not allowed to charge Netflix and was forced to give their traffic the same priority as other internet traffic.
Now they’re not forced to treat all traffic equally so they don’t)
Please note that we are still talking about the same thing you and I, I’m just saying that with Net neutrality, Comcast could not shape traffic based on source.
Or are you saying that the timing of deregulation and throttling are coincidences?
If you’re not then why do you think the FCC prevented them from doing this in the past?
Whats your opinion on their reasoning?
(Remember, none of the things you have said needs to change for us to talk about net neutrality)
So are you saying you disagree with their reasoning? Or are you just stating the obvious, that they can throttle traffic forcing an agreement between them and Netflix so they will?
(Please remember that if what you say is true, and Netflix and Cogent were conspiring (in a sense) to abuse the deal between Cogent and Comcast Comcast did not take steps like throttling traffic or put their lawyers to work even so the courts could issue a ruling before the FCC was taken out of the picture, but as soon as they could, they affected their subscribers access thereby forcing Netflix into an agreement, this still fits within your argument)
And what do you think of Verizon’s Redbox and how would this affect competition with services like Netflix or any new startups?
See, this is all about net neutrality, Comcast held its subscriber’s hostage as a bargaining chip against Netflix.
I mean, If I was Comcast I’d have just issued a press release saying Netflix didn’t cover their bill so users would see a disruption of service. But then they would have been the ones under pressure, not Netflix.
Seems to me like Comcast might as well charge a Netflix tax to its users. Oh you want internet access? do you want the Netflix access as well? That will be extra.
Edit: I would think of even more obvious ways to do this, just throttle everything from cogent except for Netflix as this should impact Cogent’s SLA’s whithout affecting their own customer satisfaction, or maybe throttle JUST the Netflix traffic coming from Cogent which you are saying was the dispute, this would impact Cogent and Netflix’s agreement and also force them to renegotiate. I would love to know why we haven’t heard the legal argument from Comcast unless they maybe, lost it? Would that be relevant to our conversation here? I mean, why such ham fisted tactics like throttling traffic? Were they losing money? was their business model that bad to begin with? I don’t think that’s the case, Nobody has said that’s the case, you can’t possibly think that’s the case.
