Tough for the prosecutors but this is a flash of some sense.
Agreed. No doubt it will make the prosecutor's job a little harder. But it's the right (principled) thing. And sometimes doing the right thing isn't the easiest option.
What is the goal here?
I think it's simply to bring some transparency and visibiity to the number and scope of secret warrants.
What is to say that court orders won't require making false statements to general public (ie. false canary)?
McMillen says that not only have the large content providers already had preferential bandwidth for ten years, but that by now this has become an inherent part of the structure of the Internet and in practice cannot be changed.
Everything is *always* in a state of change. Bad argument made by McMillen. There are many ISPs who don't have prioritized access for Google/companyx. Comcast/Verizon/ATT operate only within US, their prioritized access model does not exist the rest of the internet world.
When a journalist writes such poor quality articles you kinda do have to wonder about their motivations ($$$) as well as of their publishing company who approves it for publication.
Cogent has a long history of instigating peering disputes with other networks. Normally I'd complain about Verizon's behavior but this is Cogent we're talking about. They have -zero- credibility.
I agree that Cogent is no saint, but the argument falls against Verizon here.
Verizon has a responsibility to the paying customer that Verizon do whatever peering is needed to deliver promised bandwidth. Why else does the customer pay Verizon - it's certainly not for access to Verizon's internal network. Granted, Verizon can't afford to peer with every mom-and-pop streaming service, but reasonable to expect peering with Cogent/Netflix when 30% of traffic on the internet is netflix. That's why an ISP is charges the end-user.
Now Verizon, being a near monopoly like Comcast, decides that it has leverage to double-dip. Verizon has a competing service in Redbox Instant, and it certainly is to Verizon's benefit that their competitor Netflix suffers. Proof is in that netflix has offered to put servers on Verizon's internal networks but Verizon is asking 10x the going rate. In other words, Verizon is trying to either a) extract exorbitant money from a competitor or b) degrade the competitor's service. Note, that other ISPs like TWC or google fiber or GreenLight don't seem to be having a problem, just Verizon.
This is why folks, it's an issue of principles of net neutrality and that monopolies should be tightly regulated (deliver traffic only, not content). To avoid conflicts of interest that result in harm to the end-user.
I took a fish head to the movies and I didn't have to pay. -- Fish Heads, Saturday Night Live, 1977.