"The ISPs aren't peering at all, they are the termination point."

Huh? Peering is how traffic is exchanged between termination points. Traffic from Netflix to Comcast customers can reach Comcast's network three ways:

1) Netflix can peer with Comcast.

2) Netflix can be a transit customer of a network that peers with Comcast.

3) Netflix can be a transit customer of Comcast.

1 is what they agreed to now. 2 is what they had before using Cogent's peering with Comcast. 3 is unreasonable given the business nature of Comcast and Netflix.

> Why should Netflix hesitate to explain to their subscribers that their ISP is the cause of poor streaming because they refuse to peer with the Netflix network?

They were happy to peer with Netflix, Netflix just didn't want to pay for it. They tried to get Cogent to bully Comcast and that failed. So Netflix agreed to peer with Comcast directly. Settlement-based peering for traffic imbalances has been the norm for more than a decade. Netflix and Cogent just tried to strongarm Comcast and failed.

Google and Facebook produce large amounts of outbound bandwidth from a small number of endpoints. Comcast handles large amounts of inbound traffic to a large number of endpoints. The traffic benefits both parties equally, but it is inherent in both Google's and Facebook's business models that their traffic will cost them less than the costs it imposes on the destination networks. Thus it makes sense for Comcast to charge them to balance things out. This argument doesn't work in reverse.

You're tilting at windmills here. It has been a very long time since "Internet access" meant unfiltered, unthrottled access. If you were arguing for laws requiring clearer disclosure about exactly what people are getting, I wouldn't have a problem.

I have no problem with a law requiring carriers who claim to be neutral to in fact be neutral. But otherwise, this is like the nutty argument that fractional reserve banking is inherently fraudulent because some people might think the bank keeps all the deposits in their safe.

Right, but what about when there's *ZERO* choices for Internet? Presumably, anti-net neutrality policies are profitable for ISPs or they wouldn't want to adopt them. So you've just discouraged the very competition you claim you want by reducing the profitability of entering underserved markets.

Right, and this will force more people to go without because it will decrease the profitability of providing Internet access, decreasing competition.

It doesn't work that way. There is no category of "money" that something must either fit in or not fit in.

Is a toy car a car? If yes, does that mean you have to register it?

Please by quiet while adults are trying to speak.

Say I have $10,000 that I go by selling drugs. I want to make it appear legitimate. So here's what I do:

1) I convert the $10,000 to Bitcoins anonymously.

2) I sell those Bitcoins for $10,000.

3) I claim that I bought those Bitcoins for $65, and pay taxes on the profits.

I have no made my drug profits appear to be legitimate income.

If it cost a car dealer $1,000 more to sell a car, the price of cars would go up about $1,000 immediately. The money comes from the consumer. The consumer ultimately pays all the costs associated with making and selling the product.

If everyone agreed with this reasoning, the price would already be higher. The fact that the price is where it now shows that other people assess the probability of Bitcoin taking over a substantial fraction of the world economy *much* lower than you do. If you still think you're right and everyone else is wrong, then buy Bitcoins.

Whether or not the conduct creates an unreasonable risk has nothing to do with whether that conduct is legal or not.

"Wether or not they work is irrelevant. Aiding someone in committing a crime, in this case..."

If they don't work, it's not aiding anyone in committing a crime. In fact, it's ensuring they get caught.

But that is a heckler's veto, recognized as invalid in the United States. Under this kind of reasoning, I can silence anyone I want by creating a situation where their speech is likely to cause a foreseeable risk of harm to others. For example, if a guy is preaching on a bus, even where he has a perfect right to preach, I can force him to either stop preaching or risk tort liability by simply saying, "If you don't stop preaching, I'll slap the driver, creating a risk of a traffic accident". In the United States, we don't hold people liable for how other people choose to react to their speech acts, even if that reaction is reasonably foreseeable, even if it is intended. (Except under very narrow circumstances nothing like the circumstances involved here.)