Re: wierd facts
They aren't peering with comast, they bought transit from them... so, in addition to going straight to a HUGE percentage of endusers, they also get to leverage comcasts peering and transit connections. In other words, they realized they made a mistake on their infrastructure, and they fixed it. There is no point putting a 20k square foot warehouse store in a town with only 1500 people. You have to put that sucker in the middle of a major metropolitan area for it to 'work'.
Comcast's network capacity has never been the issue. the issue has always been 'how does comcast justify upgrading a peering connection with a carrier that is already hugely lopsided because of one of it's customers'
pull that one customer off that line and put them somewhere else, and the problem is now fixed. What do you know! maybe those guys who RUN THE NETWORK actually know something about... mmmm, RUNNING THE NETWORK? <insert BOFH moment>
there is no such thing as a 'public backbone commitment'. In fact, there is no such thing as a 'public backbone', nor has their been in the US. The only portions of network that could be considered owned by the public would be the private networks maintained by government and Internet2 which is pretty much all university and research facility stuff.
Internet peering is an amazingly pure form of commerce. It doesn't matter how big a footprint you have, it doesn't matter how many customers you have. The only thing that matters is if you have something a peer wants/needs to make THEIR network better, or the color of your money.
injecting all these conspiracy theories about 'the man keeping us DOWN' simply illustrates someone recognizing their business plan didn't take into account the realities of their transport costs. I mean, damn... Looking at the Net Neutrality: what you need to know page is a laundry list of things to be afraid of. THEY EVEN THROW DOWN THE RACE CARD! cause you know, ISPs have so much spare time laying around, they can take the time to censor your website if you are promoting some kind of minority rights campaign...
big carriers pinching off competitors packets? why would they do that? where is the MONEY in that? because you seem to forget the other side of the coin. once one carrier decides to get cute that way, nothing protects them from an all out war with every other carrier.
It's happened in the past. anyone remember AGIS? (who's moldy remains are now owned by COGENT) AGIS thought nothing of hosting spam generating customers, which were ACTIVELY blocked by most major carriers at the time. If you had net neutrality, wouldn't everyone be forced to allow such things? They ended up out of business for pushing unwanted data on the rest of us. This is a great example of the good people who actually run the internet, acting independently to maintain the integrity of the system. In virtually every case where someone demands a law be made to help police what goes on online, it's based on a broken assumption.
COGENT based outages used to be a regular thing on the network, as they would string along their peering partners, blatantly abusing their peering agreements, until they had their plug pulled. I think the last MAJOR pain they caused was when sprint de-peered them in 2008?
Oddly enough, COGENTS failure to maintain their agreements is also a reason for demanding 'real net neutrality', since their failure results in disruption of the network, other carriers should be FORCED to deal with them. What?
Which brings us to the sticking point: How does NETFLIX making a poor choice in transit carrier for their needs translate into a need for net neutrality? Are we really going to start picking winners and losers online? or are we going to force everyone to fund everything, regardless of how inefficient, broken, or otherwise faulty it is, in the name of 'fair'.
Fair is an artificial construct designed to promote competition and innovation. it's not supposed to be a bludgeon to force everyone else into going along with someone's screw ups.