> With a cost-neutral peering, each network operator pays for the expansion of its own network itself. Likewise, every network operator shall bear the costs of its own router interfaces at the connections between the networks (peering points).
> Large content providers have a strong interest to reach the DSL customers of DPCs with the best possible performance, and therefore are looking for alternatives to congested interfaces between the carriers. These are found usually through direct connections of the major content suppliers to the respective DPCs. At this point, the DPC can use their market position, since as a result of congested interfaces no other carrier can reach the DSL customers of the respective DPCs with sufficient speed. Therefore, the DPC can set prices, free of competition, which interested content providers have to pay to achieve performant connctions to "its" DSL customers.
So effectively ISPs are incentivized to neglect peerings that they aren't currently double dipping on in order to use their customers to coerce payment. Note that (unfortunately) DTAG was eventually successful in coercing Hetzner to pay for peering with them. They did this by abusing their customers. It's textbook monopolistic behavior.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to steelman the argument properly and separate out two different issues. IMO there's room for the FTC to have an "unreasonable use" penalty but otherwise mandate net neutrality. It has to come from the FTC so we need to actually properly regulate telecoms.
No. There are lots of things companies could theoretically do to be more competitive. That doesn't mean those things are good or should be legal.
> That's different than the anti-competitive behavior the big ISPs engage in when ...
Actually I think the two are tightly coupled. There's a Hetzner article linked to elsewhere in this comment section that does a good job of articulating it. https://web.archive.org/web/20170607120440/https://wiki.hetz...
> With a cost-neutral peering, each network operator pays for the expansion of its own network itself. Likewise, every network operator shall bear the costs of its own router interfaces at the connections between the networks (peering points).
> Large content providers have a strong interest to reach the DSL customers of DPCs with the best possible performance, and therefore are looking for alternatives to congested interfaces between the carriers. These are found usually through direct connections of the major content suppliers to the respective DPCs. At this point, the DPC can use their market position, since as a result of congested interfaces no other carrier can reach the DSL customers of the respective DPCs with sufficient speed. Therefore, the DPC can set prices, free of competition, which interested content providers have to pay to achieve performant connctions to "its" DSL customers.
So effectively ISPs are incentivized to neglect peerings that they aren't currently double dipping on in order to use their customers to coerce payment. Note that (unfortunately) DTAG was eventually successful in coercing Hetzner to pay for peering with them. They did this by abusing their customers. It's textbook monopolistic behavior.