I do blame the ISP - but even if it is congested as long as it is equally congested then it isn't a net neutrality issue - it is a bandwidth issue for the ISP. They are being neutrally bad to everyone.

If it is correct they were purposely putting Netflix on to congested links then they are not being net neutral and are purposefully trying to extort money from Netflix.

This makes for a good read on the subject.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/24/5541916/netflix-de...

Along the lines of what I was saying earlier, business decisions and lack of net neutrality legislation meant Netflix had little to fall back on, and instead they ended up making a deal in order to protect their core business. Unfortunately this sets a bad precedent.

The reason they still push hard for net neutrality is simple, this costs them money, and in their opinion (and mine) it's wrong that ISPs should be paid twice for maintaining their own networks.

Hmm, that has me even more unconvinced about the arguments that either side are making.

If I were to assume that Comcast are making a not unreasonable profit (possibly an incorrect assumption) then the enormous increase in traffic caused by Netflix streaming (which is what gives Netflix a profit) would cause the company to potentially lose a substantial amount of profit if they have to upgrade their interconnects.

So, if they need to get more income they can either charge Netflix or they can charge their users. In some ways charging Netflix is actually fairer as it is then Netflix customers that ultimately foot the bill rather than it being charged across all the customers of the ISP.

I am beginning to wonder from that if it isn't correct the Netflix should be paying towards this as it is their users causing the bandwidth issue.

The alternatives are that the ISP share the additional costs across all their users (including those who don't use Netflix) or they only charge those that use Netflix (probably as a "bolt on").

The only net neutral option is to charge all of the customers of the ISP equally for the pipe upgrades. But, if a user doesn't use Netflix why should their bill increase in order to cover the bandwidth of those that do.

And then we get onto the grounds of the only way that Internet billing truly works is to charge per GB. Because otherwise who pays for the bandwidth required for P2P downloads, Lovefilm, YouTube, etc. Charging per protocol would be impossible - charging per GB would seem to be the only way then Netflix wouldn't have to pay the ISP because the user already is - for every bit of data they use.

Oh dear - but then most traffic is done at peak times so maybe you need to charge more for peak data than off peak - because it is the size of the pipe they probably pay for rather than the amount of data transitting (although could be both). AAISP charge this way already as I suspect a few others do but not many.

I think it's more the case that the internet needs to be treated as a common carrier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJOZEVQOfNc

How would net neutrality effect ISPs who traffic manage certain ports through their FUP?

I am assuming that would be against net neutrality and therefore they would no longer be allowed to do so. But, guess that depends on the letter of any law that is laid down.

EU package does allow for 'paid' boosts so long as elevating them does not reduce best efforts (i.e. normal) traffic.

As with many EU laws a lot will depend on each countries interpretation or some may rebel and refuse to endorse it.