3 ms·

Is it not a huge regression that the power was given to ISPs to implement this at any time?

• 0xy 2y ago
  No, since that's how peering agreements are supposed to work. Generally speaking, two parties build a peering pipe between each other, let's say it's 100Gbps. All is good. Now, fast forward a few years and this peering line is reaching capacity. Who should pay? Should it be Party A who uses 70% of the capacity or Party B who uses 30% of the capacity? Net neutrality forces Party B to pay, which is totally against the spirit of the internet and these agreements. Net neutrality is nothing more than a corporate handout to freeloading cheapskates like Netflix who started this entire outrage because they refused to pay for peering upgrades (as their peering agreements mandate). Net neutrality literally shifted the cost of upgrading the pipes that were saturated as a direct result of Netflix traffic onto the ISPs, and therefore onto consumers. So customers who NEVER used Netflix are paying more. Strictly speaking, there's nothing stopping AT&T from hiking prices to $499/month in areas they have effective monopolies. They don't. Prices are reasonably competitive even there. You can't invent a doomsday scenario (the world is ending in 2012!) then when it doesn't come to pass you merely adjust the timeframe (the world is ending in 2030 for real this time!). That's what those arguments were, dishonest doomsday predictions which repeatedly failed to come to fruition.