Should the political winds shift, you'll still have your Netflix, but the "extremist" or fringe political websites you might visit will be given the stormfront treatment.

This.

The people celebrating this don't seem to understand how bad this is for an open, free internet. They also seem to have dropped their opposition to "corporations controlling the internet".

All this talk about open internet, ISPs not acting as gatekeepers, corporations not controlling the internet, etc. is a bit thin when people are openly celebrating corporations kicking websites off the internet with little notice for offensive (very offensive in these cases) content after having collected money from them for years.

You can abhor places like the dailystormer and stormfront, while also disagreeing with what happened to them, how it happened, and pointing out that this bodes very badly for an open, free internet.

We can live with a tiny portion of the planet cordoned off. Also, no one is proposing removing it to another planet or to outer space.

Considering how many lives were saved having nuclear power over the alternatives at the time (oil, coal), it could be a very reasonable tradeoff.

Samsung pay can also do NFC, which means that it's better than Apple Pay and can be used in far more places.
If anything, Samsung chose right by making their app more widely compatible.

I suggest we wait until they actually do something and then act.

In the past, Torrent traffic DID cause performance problems on DOCSIS networks
https://people.cs.clemson.edu/...
http://bennett.com/2007/11/doc...

On a side note, ISPs can and do change the egress path for traffic leaving their network to address latency, peer link imbalances, etc.
There's no good reasons to stop them from doing this.

How do you feel about business internet connections getting better SLA and prioritization over residential customers on the same ISP network?

Out of all the cities that tried municipal broadband or equivalent, how many were not expensive trainwrecks that were scrapped before completion?

Thank You!

Netflix knew what they were doing when they bought transit from Cogent instead of directly on the large ISP networks they wanted to access. Some articles have suggested that Netflix wanted to save money on CDN costs by offloading traffic via Cogent (and eventually Level 3).

Far too many people seem eager to embrace the idea of the receiver bearing the burden without understanding what that would mean in the long term.
For those who don't understand what I'm referring to, it's the idea that 'residential' ISPs should just upgrade their peer links if they congest and/or tolerate huge traffic imbalances, both without compensation, because the ISP's customer paid for their connection and the ISP should do what it takes to give them the bandwidth they paid for and/or because it's their customers requesting the traffic.

I can only imagine the long term impact to the internet with some providers 'poaching' (kind of hate that term here) all the large content providers and then expecting/demanding ISPs accommodate any/all traffic sent their way. Businesses of almost any size will have a choice as to which provider to choose, but most residential customers will not, and those residential customers will then shoulder the full costs of the network. Should make for low speeds, minimal upgrades, and high costs.

Bankrolled by their investors. From a $1 stock price in 2002 to $163 today - not exactly a company struggling to pay their bills and certainly not a company that can't afford to do things the right way.

Assuming that's true, Netflix probably should have bought transit directly on those networks instead of cutting corners by going with crappy providers that either didn't want to properly size their paid peering links or were willing to imbalance settlement free links.

Strange that Hulu, Amazon, Youtube, etc.,didn't have this problem, only Netflix.

Yep. If they kept it up, an investigation by someone neutral would show that Netflix was the bad guy in all of this. They chose shitty Tier1 ISPs for a reason and it had nothing to with providing a good experience for their customers.

Then the problem was a contractual one, not a net neutrality one.

I like the argument from Netflix that ISPs shouldn't let peer links congest. I guess every ISP has to give other ISPs infinite bandwidth without charging for it.

Settlement free peering is what made the internet what it is, but Netflix has profits to make and they've chosen to save money by going with transit providers that will play the victim when ISPs don't tolerate settlement free peering link imbalances or refuse to upgrade paid peering links without being paid.