As far as I know, this is what happened. Comcast was not happy with the large amount of Netflix traffic coming into its network and decided to redesign the commercial agreements. It’s all part of the pull-push nature of Internet relationships.

As a result, after back and forth, back and forth, pushing and pulling, yelling and yelling, now, instead of going through a transit operator, Netflix interacts directly with Comcast in a streaming deal. paid traffic. Par for course and it happens all the time, except for this one, we’re told it’s the end of the internet as we know it. Here’s the thing. Anyone in the industry will tell you that such fixes and changes happen frequently between the parties that manage traffic flows and performance, par for the course as I said. Ostensibly at least, the bilateral interconnection agreement between Netflix and Comcast is similar to all those other such agreements that collectively allow the Internet to work.

So how did it become the end of the Internet as we know it? Where and how do “net neutrality” concerns fit into a peer-to-peer discussion/dispute/agreement? And if so, does that mean that the agreement between Comcast and Netflix is ​​not an interconnection agreement? Or do peer agreements now fall within the scope of this net neutrality thing? It has left regulators, ISPs and content providers wondering what the future holds; not only here in the US, but also in Asia and Europe.

The biggest concern expressed in the media is about this new cost being applied to the Internet by companies like Comcast, which owns eyeballs. However, Netflix was already paying its transit operator to access Comcast. Under the new agreement, Netflix simply dropped or reduced its flow through the transit operator and connected directly to Comcast using paid peering. Where was the added impact on the end user? I looked up data on what Netflix was now paying Comcast, but of course it was confidential. How much were you paying your transit carrier before? Confidential. The best version of the topic did not come from the “concerned” and the “grieved”, but from this blog post: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/heres-comcast-netflix-deal-structured-numbers . html

One then decided to dig beyond the plethora of generalities and look at the details of how this deal jeopardized net neutrality. I don’t have to search carefully because aside from populist concerns and calls for the FCC to step in and save the Internet, I couldn’t find anything other than high-profile corporate speech. There is no real case in public for people like me to sink their teeth. However, that is more than enough for the media to sink its teeth and before we knew it, the Internet was in danger.

This is the only thing I found out. As far as I know, ‘Net Neutrality’, as stated by the FCC, only applies to Comcast, after they acquired NBC. No one else was subject to net neutrality provisions until now, with the latest FCC ruling which, thanks to content providers and transit operators screaming murder, has been presented, going forward, as the champion of the Internet and pledged to ensure that there will not be “two Internets”. So instead of keeping the internet neutral, we’ve now allowed the FCC to step in and decide the fate. Someone once said: “Be careful what you ask for…”

In conclusion:

1) If the new agreement between Netflix and Comcast is nothing more than paid peering, then it is nothing more than paid peering and has nothing to do with ‘net neutrality’.

2) Even if Comcast says it will provide two types of paid access through peering, one with best effort and one with QoS under SLA, that’s fine too and doesn’t jeopardize the Internet. Such arrangements are permitted in Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, and elsewhere. It is not a big thing.

3) It only becomes a big problem if the traffic is separated based on what is in the packets. If Comcast, for example, took a look at packets and didn’t allow video or voice or forced it through different conduits, that would be a concern. Several countries, for example, block voice/Skype traffic. This is horrible. It’s not wrong to say, though, that I’ll give you the best regular access and the premium access. If the video provider insists on transmitting their traffic above the best access and not using the premium service offered, it is up to them and should be allowed. The FCC has a role in ensuring that the actual performance over a best effort or premium pipeline is actually what the ISP claims it to be. Beyond that, you should avoid interfering with market trading.

4) One more thing the FCC could do. It could ensure that monopolies remain divided and that consolidation does not mean that a dangerously small number of providers hold the customer for ransom. This is what happened in the health insurance market where they divided the country into territories for insurance companies and antitrust laws. The same thing seems to happen in the last mile of the internet in the US and that’s a potential ‘Net Neutrality’ concern.

Now please show me where I’m wrong and get me out of the water.