On Apr 26, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Rick Astley <jna...@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