Originally Posted by ChristophB
Both sides are always charged.... You place a phone call both sides pay for access; you type HTTP:// and a page loads both sides paid for access. Even in your example you reveal you know little about how private networks make up The Internet. Netflix bolts to Cogent and then Cogent expects free transit into and through T1 providers all the while massively overruns the pipes. Sure it's good for Netflix cause they get cut rate access and it's AT&T's or Verizon's or L3 or TaTa, or DT's problem when their customers have latency, drops and poor application
performance. Cogent fights paying for access when their in:out ratios exceed the agreed upon transit agreements of 2:1. Isn't 2:1 already more than fair? Smaller guy gets 2, bigger guy gets 1....
Net neutrality is code for forcing a the more successful to prop up the less successful and pass the costs onto the consumer on the more successful network. The edge always pays whether it's the phone, the tablet, the DSLAM, the cable modem or the NAP. In your world, the result is T1 ISPs would stop peering with T2s which would mean there are no more T3s or T4s. It would end up restricting what is already a free flow of data brought about by cooperation between, what are normally, warring entities - partnering for the common benefit - commerce.
The wireless carrier example, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, DT and others are charging the same
for faster speeds. More speed for same price is more, right? You're wanting more speed and more data for less cost. What funds the expansion? What funds innovation?
Sheesh, someone needs to write a real history of the Internet from 1990 - date. All these things that people want free or the government to regulate... Why did Europe and Canada privatize their telecoms? Why did the US Deregulate? You telco haters could stand to get some education.
Obviously, you know a bit about how the networks charge for things. It isn't like you are saying something all that different from my simpler explanation of paying on the difference between requests.
Right now, we have big companies making a profit, and we still have smaller companies making enough to stay in business. YOU and AT&T suggest we change the system so AT&T can charge another party for bandwidth they are already getting compensated for - because it makes it "more fair."
I think it's a difficult thing to find what is "truly fair". I also don't have empathy for corporations -- only people. If the Big Guys pay more than the Little Guys -- but everyone still exists in the market, that's actually a GOOD THING.
There are a bunch of creating ways things can be paid for and charged, but let's not cry about Netflix having a good deal -- nobody would bother buying the "bigger, faster, unlimited bandwidth" package if they weren't using things like Netflix. If AT&T wants to charge more -- they already can. There is no easy way to know what it costs to send a gigabyte down the Internet -- and yet, you are supporting a company saying; "WE sold customers unlimited bandwidth at a reasonable speed, and they are using that bandwidth and data rate -- we want more money from the people providing them content." That's so backward - if the system were ENTIRELY on the Internet Service Provider, then costs would be easier to determine and more reasonable in the end. Why should any content provider do anything but charge for someone accessing their content? If I bought water from the Water Department, I might get metered or unlimited, we aren't charging Penguins if they have to ship in an iceberg are we? If anything, the current system should probably be amended so that the little guys don't pay anything, because THEY ARE THE CONTENT.
I pay Netflix and I pay AT&T -- if Netflix has to pay AT&T, they can fluff up the rates and then charge themselves (or friends) less for content providing. Then we get the same system as we have with Health Care where Insurance companies fluff up fees and paying much less than the stated amount. In many cases -- our co-pay is really the payment for the service, and the insurance company just made a convoluted system so they get free money. The medical care providers pay through the nose to insure themselves and so do customers -- and costs keep going up.
We want Net neutrality and AT&T will still make a fortune under the current system -- or we make changes that you and AT&T are advocating, THEY will make more profit, they won't charge less, and there will be fewer companies involved with me getting on the internet or getting me content than if we kept the current system. You and AT&T probably won't be apologizing.
And it sounds like you are so informed in the infrastructure that this is how you butter your bread. Is that so?