The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

Mon Apr 28 00:05:03 UTC 2014

On Apr 26, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Rick Astley <jnanog at gmail.com> wrote:

>> How is this *not* Comcast's problem?  If my users are requesting more
> traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
> capacity to handle that?  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add
> ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.  Am I missing
> something?
> 
> Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that
> point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix
> would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get
> the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if
> Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or
> should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for
> those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't
> basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I
> couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the
> position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once
> that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment
> for delivering it so there is no double billing.

Beyond that, there’s a more subtle argument also going on about whether
$EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to $CONTENT_A
and less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method for encouraging
subscribers to select $CONTENT_A over $CONTENT_B by affecting the relative
performance.

This becomes much stickier when you face the reality that in many places,
$EYEBALL_PROVIDER has an effective monopoly as the only player choosing
to offer services at a useful level of bandwidth/etc. (If that).

Owen