That's simply ISPs seeing a lucrative revenue stream and wanting in on it. Let's put company size and market cap out of the picture and think of the network architecture. I set up a server in Romania. Someone from USA makes a request to it and gets a response. Can their ISP (Comcast or AT&T or whoever else) now send me a bill at the end of the month?
> That's simply ISPs seeing a lucrative revenue stream and wanting in on it. Let's put company size and market cap out of the picture and think of the network architecture. I set up a server in Romania. Someone from USA makes a request to it and gets a response. Can their ISP (Comcast or AT&T or whoever else) now send me a bill at the end of the month?
I think it's the reverse: the idea is that your server in Romania keeps getting a low-priority until you send each ISP (Comcast, AT&T, etc) a cheque every month.
They don't need to send you a bill, they only need to wait for your money.
I agree that they're setting up a revenue stream. I also think that a business that charges customers on both sides isn't as crazy as you want it to be. For example, a customer of our pays SAP Ariba to be the SaaS for their procurement process. We also have to pay SAP Ariba to submit invoices to this customer. In your example I expect they wouldn't send you a bill for the request. I do expect they would send you a notice to join whatever program they run or they will stop routing to your server.
Again, I don't agree with what the ISP is doing, but I can rationalize how they think it makes sense.
> I don't agree with what the ISP is doing, but I can rationalize how they think it makes sense.
It only makes sense if they perceive no backlash for overreaching.
We need to look closely at what they are currently doing. They're expanding zero rating on mobile, and also on broadband in some areas by claiming that their network is "proprietary technology" and not subject to such net neutrality laws.
Meanwhile, municipalities are prevented from building their own networks to compete with regional broadband monopolies. It's internet-highway robbery.
I agree with your general point (a lack of competition is why they can get away with double-charging for traffic), though this feels like a theoretical concern as of yet.
But you're conflating different ISPs with different types of anti-competitive behavior. Prioritizing non-streaming-service (e.g. throttling Netflix at prime time) packets could, for example, help a regional ISP stay competitive. That's different than the anti-competitive behavior the big ISPs engage in when they lobby governments/help pass laws which _block_ ISP competition in regions like Denver. Different issues with different effects.
> this feels like a theoretical concern as of yet.
This was Ajit Pai's argument. That we should regulate nothing until there's a problem. There are two problems with it,
(1) It's already a problem. There have been documented examples of ISPs throttling, favoring their own partnered content. Also they are actively expanding or seeking to expand zero rating which is anti-competitive.
(2) At the point you actually have a barren landscape in which competitors cannot grow, you've already sucked in a slew of investors on the idea that these monopolies' business models are sound. If the government steps in at that point, they risk being seen as the bad guy for destroying all that investment, which can have political consequences.
We can avoid all that by acknowledging the existing problems, and encouraging competition among ISPs. There should be very few people advocating for monopolies, and we outnumber them.
> Prioritizing non-streaming-service (e.g. throttling Netflix at prime time) packets could, for example, help a regional ISP stay competitive.
That only helps Netflix and that ISP maintain their grip. It's only competitive if by competitive you mean stomping out any new ISP or content provider that is unable to make such agreements.
> With a cost-neutral peering, each network operator pays for the expansion of its own network itself. Likewise, every network operator shall bear the costs of its own router interfaces at the connections between the networks (peering points).
> Large content providers have a strong interest to reach the DSL customers of DPCs with the best possible performance, and therefore are looking for alternatives to congested interfaces between the carriers. These are found usually through direct connections of the major content suppliers to the respective DPCs. At this point, the DPC can use their market position, since as a result of congested interfaces no other carrier can reach the DSL customers of the respective DPCs with sufficient speed. Therefore, the DPC can set prices, free of competition, which interested content providers have to pay to achieve performant connctions to "its" DSL customers.
So effectively ISPs are incentivized to neglect peerings that they aren't currently double dipping on in order to use their customers to coerce payment. Note that (unfortunately) DTAG was eventually successful in coercing Hetzner to pay for peering with them. They did this by abusing their customers. It's textbook monopolistic behavior.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to steelman the argument properly and separate out two different issues. IMO there's room for the FTC to have an "unreasonable use" penalty but otherwise mandate net neutrality. It has to come from the FTC so we need to actually properly regulate telecoms.
I think the imaginations of some who would strike down net neutrality go far beyond that.
They would disconnect the net at every border imaginable and charge for access along every gateway. It's an authoritarian's wet dream to have such control, and we the people should oppose it at every turn.
Setting up a framework that cements existing monopolies isn't capitalist, it's anti-competitive.
