> I'm not talking about the market between you and your ISP, which I agree is not very free.
Right, but those two issues are for me, inseparable. If I don't have the freedom to choose my ISP and my ISP doesn't take my opinion into account when making business decisions, then I have no recourse.
If there were other ISPs for me to choose from, then I'm all for absolutely ZERO laws about net neutrality because then actual market forces can actually go to work.
Market forces on the consumer side of consumer ISPs can directly influence the happenings on the peering side of consumer ISPs.
> I think every participant should be allowed to make their own decision whether to pay, and the other side shouldn't be forced to carry traffic it isn't paid for from that side.
Sure, so now Cogent and Level3 can demand $100/Mbps/mo from Comcast right? Because without buying global transit, it's not really INTERNET, it's just Comcast. What if all the transit providers decided that those were the new rules? Would Comcast have any alternative?
What if these transit providers all got together and agreed that none of them would offer Comcast global transit for less than $100/Mbps/mo? Would that be OK? I mean, Comcast has highly asymmetric flows right? They should be allowed to do this, shouldn't they?
Because as it stands right now, I've got a million Comcasts I can choose from, but they've all agreed with one another that the pricing is the same no matter which one I pick. If Comcast can hold me hostage, why can't the transit providers all agree to hold Comcast hostage?
Right, but those two issues are for me, inseparable. If I don't have the freedom to choose my ISP and my ISP doesn't take my opinion into account when making business decisions, then I have no recourse.
If there were other ISPs for me to choose from, then I'm all for absolutely ZERO laws about net neutrality because then actual market forces can actually go to work.
Market forces on the consumer side of consumer ISPs can directly influence the happenings on the peering side of consumer ISPs.
> I think every participant should be allowed to make their own decision whether to pay, and the other side shouldn't be forced to carry traffic it isn't paid for from that side.
Sure, so now Cogent and Level3 can demand $100/Mbps/mo from Comcast right? Because without buying global transit, it's not really INTERNET, it's just Comcast. What if all the transit providers decided that those were the new rules? Would Comcast have any alternative?
What if these transit providers all got together and agreed that none of them would offer Comcast global transit for less than $100/Mbps/mo? Would that be OK? I mean, Comcast has highly asymmetric flows right? They should be allowed to do this, shouldn't they?
Because as it stands right now, I've got a million Comcasts I can choose from, but they've all agreed with one another that the pricing is the same no matter which one I pick. If Comcast can hold me hostage, why can't the transit providers all agree to hold Comcast hostage?