Double paid traffic
Frequently it seems as though statements by neutrality advocates mention "providers" without naming any. Who are the providers that misbehave, and what are they doing? Can we see a graph of their traffic and a depiction of the misbehavior? (Saturated links, offers to peer and expand the links that are refused, etc.) I'd love it if the evidence were laid out. Unfortunately at the moment, it seems like there's a lot of ambiguous finger-pointing.<p>What do (presumably) Comcast and these other companies say when you communicate with them about peering, and you ask them why they won't? Anyone with insight into these issues care to share the DLS/cable provider perspective? (Is there some kind of reasonable argument there we're not hearing - "Infrastructure costs are rising, you see, and we built the infrastructure we have now with a government subsidy that's no longer available. So when we expand, it's going to cost 10x as much ... " just to make something up. Is there another side to the story, or is it really just supply/demand where the providers exploit their market power? "Our customers are not likely to drop our Internet service for a competitor just because Netflix is slow. In fact, our data show that they start watching cable TV more, which is good for us - we want cable TV to be sticky. So we'll charge a fee since we're nearly a monopoly and the market will sustain it. Further, since Netflix is where all the traffic is going, we'll just charge them directly rather than expand pipes all around".) [edits]<p>> For this reason, interfaces are being operated at their highest capacity -- to make paid access to the DSL and cable providers' networks attractive for content providers. The end consumer is then forced to pay double for unlimited access to the Internet.<p>I don't entirely follow this part. Could someone clarify? Is "operating at their highest capacity" a bad thing? Is the implication "operating at their highest capacity [without expanding capacity when they should]"?