Netflix can arrange their network to get very low per packet costs because they can move their endpoint wherever they want.
You are aware that Netflix is not an ISP? They are not a T1 company; they pay a T1 for that. Comcast could do that too.
Comcast can't do that. So, necessarily, Comcast's per-packet costs are higher.
That's on Comcast. That's part of their business.
Yet Netflix and Comcast cooperate to deliver packets that benefit them both equally. When benefit is equal, but costs are wildly unequal, it makes sense for one side to pay the other. And that's what the free market developed over many decades.
Again, Comcast is in the business of being an ISP. No one is forcing Comcast to be in this business.
Yes, I agree. The way it works now is with settlement-based peering. That is, companies do charge each other for peering when their bandwidth costs are asymmetric. As I said, the system the free market has built works just fine. But it does allow ISPs to demand whatever fees they want to build faster pipes to particular peers.
Again missed the point. It is not about peering. Netflix pays their Tier 1 so that they have almost no bottlenecks. Comcast however bottlenecks their own customers so they can extract more money from Netflix.
But that's just the thing. They didn't miscalculate pricing. So long as the costs are fairly divided between all the companies that did the work, their pricing is just fine. And today, that's how their pricing works. We do have settlement-based peering today.
Again you are asserting the the ISPs do way more than they actually do. How much of the traffic route of a packet is through the ISPs network? If it is merely the last mile then what you have said is that they should get more their share whereas all the intermediate companies get nothing.
I never said they did. ISPs simply have much higher per-packet costs than content providers do because content providers can put the endpoint wherever it's cheapest and ISPs can't. The endpoint is their customer's home or places of business.
No you asserted that ISPs deliver most of the way; factually they do not.
Comcast wasn't throttling Netflix specifically, they just had poor bandwidth to Netflix. A VPN allowed you to avoid the congested links between Netflix and Comcast.
No that's idiocy. If you go through a VPN through Comcast to get Netflix, you're still going through Comcast and Netflix. You are not avoiding congested links; you are merely adding an extra step.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you seriously denying that at typical Netflix->Comcast or Comcast->Netflix packet, all things considered, costs Comcast a lot more than Netflix because they have to maintain a network that goes all the way to their customer's homes and businesses?!
You are the one that argued that somehow because Netflix could build datacenters for cheap and that gave them an advantage somehow. That's not the point. ISPs could build more infrastructure should they chose; they simply do not choose to do so. Google built more network infrastructure because they saw it as an advantage to their business. Again the ISPs chose not to do so. Process that: a search company bought out dark fiber at a time when ISPs did not. Somehow it's not the ISPs responsibility for their business decisions; yet it's Netflix's responsibility for the ISP's bad decisions.
And again, it's not Netflix's responsibility that Comcast has not invested in their infrastructure. Netflix pays for it's T1 connection. If you don't think that's relevant, how about you pay for 1 month of Netflix's internet bill. I bet it's more than your annual salary.
That makes my point, doesn't it? Will net neutrality prohibit that practice or not?
Yes it would have prevented the practice. Why didn't you already know that?
If not, what good will it do? If so, what are the new rules that will decide when Comcast can or can't ask for money to colocate equipment?
That wasn't the point. Comcast didn't want to solve the problem. They wanted to shakedown Netflix for money.
How much of the currently largely unregulated Internet peering/hosting/connecting landscape will have to be regulated to fix a problem that pretty much does not even exist?
You seem not to understand the problem: there was a problem. That is a fact. Netflix offered to solve the problem; Comcast wanted money.
... says the guy posting on a forum during work hours.
Voila! Complete the course, you're an engineer.
My point again is that I can't listed my title as "Engineer" in the state of Oregon. In the other states, I can't list it as "Professional Engineer". In some states, I can't list "Licensed Engineer". Jarlstrom did that in Oregon. He was warned not to do so but disregarded the warning.
Imagine if two companies wanted to exchange physical packages. And assume that each package exchanged equally benefited both companies, say each company made $10 for each package exchanged. Should each company bear their own costs in exchanging the packages?
They already do. You've missed this point. Netflix pays a Tier 1 company for their Internet connection. As a customer to Comcast I am paying them for my ISP connection. As a Netflix customer, I am paying them for access to their library. I'm a customer of both companies.
Well, if the costs were roughly equal, sure. But what if they were wildly unequal? Say one company had to carry them across an ocean and the other only had to carry them across town. And yet each package carried benefited both companies equally. Then wouldn't it make sense for the company that has to carry the packages across an ocean to also get some money from the company who only has to carry them across town? (Roughly half of the difference in their costs to carry the packages.)
In your analogy which is highly flawed you've asserted that one company does more work than the other in transporting. In the real world Internet, that is not the case. Netflix has a huge pipe with their ISP to deliver the packets to the Internet. For the most part, Comcast only deals with the last mile. Other Tier 1 companies deal with the part in the middle. So neither company does more work.
Second in your analogy, the shipping company you are dealing with and paying is responsible in figuring a reasonable price in transport including paying intermediaries. If they miscalculated pricing, that's on them. They don't get to ask you for more money after you've sent the package off. The last. More importantly, the postman at the other end that is delivering the package to the recipient doesn't get to extort more money from you otherwise he will delay the delivery.
The company that only has to carry the packages across town could say, "The other company already makes $10 for every package exchanged, paying us would be double dipping". But that's clearly nonsense.
It is nonsense as it doesn't represent the real world of what is actually happening.
Content providers like YouTube and Netflix can locate their servers in datacenters where bandwidth is absurdly cheap. They're like the company that only carries the packages across town
And ISPs can't locate buildings where they want? They can't have infrastructure in places that are cheaper? Your argument falls apart because ISPs in places that have cheap bandwidth do not necessarily have better performance or cheaper Internet. As another example of how flawed your argument is, during the Netflix-Comast slowdown, several people showed that running their Netflix connection through a VPN was actually faster than Comcast directly. Comcast was throttling Netflix specifically. If it was a matter of bandwidth, there would have been little difference in speed.
ISPs like AT&T and Comcast can't ask their customers to move into datacenters. They have to build massive networks that cover cities. They're like the company that has to carry the packages across the ocean.
Two flawed premises: ISPs don't deliver across the ocean. And ISPs can build infrastructure where they want. In fact Google did so and they are not an ISP. In the early 2000s, Google bought up a lot of dark fiber for cheap because they wanted their own networks. The ISPs could have done so; they chose not to do so.
Well, if the costs were roughly equal, sure. But what if they were wildly unequal? Say one company had to carry them across an ocean and the other only had to carry them across town. And yet each package carried benefited both companies equally. Then wouldn't it make sense for the company that has to carry the packages across an ocean to also get some money from the company who only has to carry them across town?
Your analogy breaks down because of an unequal comparison. What kind of Internet do you think Netflix pays for? Do you think they get a 30MBs cable modem connection from their ISP? No, they pay for the fattest pipes they can from a Tier 1 provider like Level 3. Their ISP can handle all the output they want. The problem is ISPs like Comcast can't handle the demand from their customers because of the choices they made in promises and infrastructure.
Okay, so net neutrality means that Comcast has to treat traffic to YouTube the same way they treat traffic to Netflix. But Comcast can still upgrade their pipes to YouTube to be superfast and not upgrade their pipes to Netflix so access to Netflix is still slow? What good will that do?
Perhaps you missed the detail where Netflix offered to install equipment at Comcast free of charge so that their mutual customers would have upgraded pipes. Comcast refused; they wanted money. That's not capitalism; that's a mafia style shakedown.
1)GitHub's business model doesn't depend necessarily on the speed or bandwidth of their customer's ISP connection. If it takes 12 seconds or 1 second for you to download a project, as a customer you are not going to complain too much. If it takes 12 seconds as opposed to 1 second for a Netflix video to start or that it has to buffer in the middle, you wouldn't complain?
2)There are no alternatives to GitHub in many cases. If you are interested in a particular project, that's on GitHub, chances are is that it might not be on SourceForge. Most of the time the author only publishes on one of the sites. Netflix is too slow for you to stream a movie? It just happens that Comcast is also streaming that movie for twice the speed because they are your ISP as well. Because Comcast would never exploit an advantage like that at all.
"Our business model depends on the fact that we don't pay for network infrastructure upgrades." - Internet content companies.
Only people who don't understand net neutrality would say that. How do you think these 800 start-ups get the Internet? They pay for it just like every other business. What they can't pay for is privileged or special access because ISPs want more money.
That's a bit of an over-generalization. Have you never seen an engineer or scientist who had it wrong at some point?
That's not the point. The point is not whether they are right or wrong. This point is that he is not merely expressing his opinion; factually he's saying the engineers are wrong. In numerous articles, he contended that the calculation is wrong. "Convinced the cameras were using an out-of-date formula, he took his message to practically anyone who would listen — local TV stations, a conference of traffic engineers, and even the state board of engineer examiners."
Again, the state board has already said this issue with the lights is out of their jurisdiction as the city of Beaverton controls the lights; he needs to take up with the city. However, if he wishes to file a complaint with the state board, he may do so. So far he appears not to have sought to file a complaint.
The rest of your post is irrelevant as we already know he's doing this because he wants to be a member of the board.
You are aware that of the 11 members of the board, almost all of the positions require the registration/license that Jarlstrom says he does not need right? Can you see how it is relevant now?
You can call yourself a 'doctor' upon completing your PhD.
You and I both know I am referring to a medical doctor.
You can call yourself a 'attorney' upon completing your law degree.
I totally agree that a civil engineer has to be licensed in order to sign off on projects, but I think it's blatantly stupid if after successfully completing a study in electrical engineering at a university you still can't call yourself an engineer.
I did not say that. I said you need to be professional license to sign off on construction documents. Mechanical, chemical and petroleum engineers must do so when authorizing such documents. It is not just civil.
That's my logic. If a state doesn't trust the certificates of their universities, they better regulate those, instead of their graduates.
Again you have it backwards. A college confers a degree. The state grants a license. The state controls the designation. Are you aware that some colleges are not within the jurisdiction of states?
There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?