Great video! In a simpler form it comes down to money and greed, providers are greedy and want more money, internet is exploding in content that taxes aging infrastructure, providers don't want to upgrade to support it. People want faster internet but don't want to pay for it. Providers don 't want to honour the contracts they signed with content delivery services like Netflix....simple

Money and greed

Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee?
How do we encourage/convince the big ISPs to improve their infrastructure? It seems to me that high speed, reliable, and openly available internet service is in not just in the the national interest, it's a national security matter. Do we continue to trust that to AT&T etc?

We don't need to convince ISPs to give us faster speeds. We need to convince netflix and the rest to stop using cogent for transport. If netflix had a half decent pipe at their end you could stream no problem on 1.5mbps DSL

Outside plant Fiber doesn't come in orange. If it was orange, it is conduit. They might pull fiber in later but yeah.

No, netflix is greedy. Content providers are greedy. Transport providers are spending huge amounts of money to upgrade the network. Netflix spends almost nothing for a couple of OC-12s from cogent.

Tactical fiber comes in orange; I've installed miles of it over the years. Maybe the government's laying some tactical infrastructure in his neighborhood ;)

Ok.
Thx.

Thinking back on the last 10 ten years, the big money didn't flow into domestic infrastructure (physical or human).
Meanwhile, other countries invested for the future while the US cobbles along.

If I understand what Slakjaw is saying correctly, is that he's OK with Comcast charging Rennlist a premium to deliver their content faster, while Pelican slows and suffers because they can't or won't pay up. Nevermind that Pelican is paying for the bandwidth from their own provider.

Next comes a premium charge for intentionally slowing competitors. I'll bet you.

We already pay for our bandwidth. Netflix pays for their bandwidth, too. If our bandwidth supports 20mbit, we should be able to access whatever site we choose at supported speeds.

It'd be like I-5 closing down freeway offramps in the city of Seattle, while offramps in Portland remain open, because they paid up.

or Chevron says "You bought a gallon of gas. If you're going to Portland, we'll deliver you at full speed. Going to Seattle, you can go half speed"

I read an article once that was along the lines of "OMG YouTube is paying Comcast....." yeah they should be if Comcast is providing them a service. duh. YouTube was installing racks into Comcast facilities. You boys think they just do that for free or something? I mean, what you have just typed here is not how it will ever work. will never happen. All these companies have peering contracts with each other and contracts with each customer. NAPA could not slow down pelican no matter how much money they wanted to offer Comcast + the 5000 or 6000 other ISPs in the US. What will happen and what already happens is stuff that needs low latency like voice gets higher priority. Why do you guys want to put so much blind faith into the Net Neutrality 12-year-olds instead of the engineers who actually know about this stuff. is it because the net neutrality maroons can make a neat looking colorful graph or something?

So we're all on the same page: the goal of net neutrality is to reinstate regulations set forth in the FFC's Open Internet Order which were invalidated recently in Verizon v. FCC.

Whether further regulations which build open that initial order are appropriate is a valid debate ONCE we've determined whether the initial order is appropriate.

I think the biggest problem is that the companies that actually have real infrastructure are tired of pissant companies like Cogent constantly dumping traffic onto them. put something in there to eliminate that and it would be a done deal.

Please read over the open internet order. It doesn't address peering or transit. If it's there and I'm missing it please point out where.

EDIT: Upon re-reading it seems like you're saying it's a problem specifically because it doesn't address those things, is that correct? It also doesn't address medicare or welfare reform, so what? If X, Y and Z are a problem and we can fix X and Y we should, that's progress.

If you're talking about last-mile service, I'm already paying comcast to access youtube. If comcast then says "for you to have sufficient access to youtube, youtube must also pay us" then I want my money back. They can't have their cake and eat it.

If its so great, why do we need to force everyone to do it?

Who what now? "It" being net neutrality?

For the same reason we have to force other monopolies and near-monopolies to provide reasonable service -- because they're immune to market forces which would otherwise motivate them.

You are paying comcast to build, run and maintain a network. you do not pay for youtube. if you want your money back, that is a bummer for you. IP transit costs money. like it or not.

Yup, and almost everywhere else in the world, it costs (the consumer) less than it does here, and they get better service.

What monopolies ??? You mean like Youtube? Yes YouTube is a monopoly so why are you on their side? there are like 6000 ISPs in the US. it is not a monopoly

This is also not true.... it is a common myth but simply not true.

How many customers would pay Comcast $40/month to access a network of nothingness?
Without youtube and other sites the service Comcast provides is useless.