Simply put, non-neutral behavior isn`t just a matter of the relationship between ISPs, websites, and users. And it`s not just about blocking traffic or banning users from accessing a particular website or using certain software. These could be infrastructure battles that make some parts of the internet considerably faster and more reliable to reach than others. The details of the relationships and connections between ISPs and all other web services are extremely important for any long-term vision of net neutrality. The problem is that peering contracts are negotiated behind closed doors and often include non-disclosure agreements, making it difficult to find the source of a slowed down connection unless one of the companies involved chooses to take their case to the public. How do peering and paid prioritization fit into the Internet? While most people today know that the Internet is more than a „series of tubes,“ any satisfactory answer involves immersing oneself in the Internet infrastructure, which is complicated to say the least. Subject to the fact that any answer in the form of a blog post is not entirely up to par, here is a simplified version with just enough information to distinguish between peering and paid prioritization. For more detailed explanations of how peering fits into the Internet infrastructure, see the work of Dr. Anna-Maria Kovacs, a visiting senior policy researcher at Georgetown University`s Center for Business and Public Policy, or in the resources of the Global Peering Forum 2009, compiled by William Norton, an expert in peering and transit arrangements. Device neutrality is the principle that, in order to ensure the freedom of choice and communication of users of devices connected to the network, it is not sufficient for network operators not to interfere in their decisions and activities; Users should have the freedom to use the apps of their choice and therefore remove the apps they don`t want. Today, network operators create peering points with each other based on mutually beneficial locations and traffic loads. As a rule, these are exempt from billing or payment due to reasonably balanced traffic. When there is an imbalance, one party „settles“ access or pays the other for access.

For a detailed description of the high-level structure of the Internet and how peering and regulations work, see „Comcast vs. Netflix: Is it really net neutrality? The main objection to regulating net neutrality is its potential impact on network investments. ISPs point out that high-bandwidth users like Google and Skype benefit from expensive infrastructure investments that they don`t contribute to. ISPs argue that without a significant return on investment, they are less likely to continue investing in the development of their networks. As the debate over net neutrality continues, network operators often enter into peering agreements with each other. These agreements often specify how certain flows of information are to be handled. In addition, network providers often implement different policies, such as .B. Block port 25 to prevent insecure systems from serving as spam relays or other ports commonly used by decentralized music search applications that implement peer-to-peer network models. They also include terms of use, which often include rules for using certain apps as part of their contracts with users.

[Citation needed] Most consumer ISPs implement policies like this. The MIT Mantid Port Blocking Measurement Project is a measure designed to characterize Internet port blocking and potentially discriminatory practices. However, the impact of peering agreements between network providers is local only to the peers who enter into the agreements and cannot affect the flow of traffic outside their scope. [Citation needed] „Transit providers“ like Level 3 already offer direct pairing connections that anyone can use. And companies like Akamai and Cloudflare have long-standing CDNs that are accessible to everyone. But Google has only taken such precautions for its own stuff, and others follow. Netflix and Facebook have built their own CDNs, and Apple would build one as well. The case for net neutrality has also revealed that regulations are also needed due to research that has shown low tolerance for slow-loading content providers. In a 2009 study by Forrester Research, online shoppers expected the websites they visited to download content instantly.

[63] When a page can`t load at the expected speed, many of them simply click. One study found that even a one-second delay could result in „11% fewer page views, a 16% drop in customer satisfaction, and a 7% loss in conversions.“ [64] This delay can be a serious problem for small innovators who have developed new technologies. When a website is slow by default, the general public loses interest and prefers a website that works faster. This helps large corporations stay in power because they have the means to fund faster internet speeds. [65] On the other hand, smaller competitors have fewer financial options, making it difficult for them to succeed in the online world. [66] Google was the first. As the web giant expanded its online operations to a network of private data centers around the world, it also set up routers in many of the same data centers used by well-known ISPs so that traffic could be routed more directly from Google`s data centers to internet users. This type of direct connection is called „peering“. In addition, the company has set up servers in many ISPs so that popular YouTube videos, web pages, and images can be streamed faster. This is called the „Content Delivery Network“ or CDN (see glossary, on the right). „Fast Lane is the way the Internet is built today,“ says Craig Labovitz, who, as CEO of DeepField Networks, a company whose sole mission is to track how companies build an internet infrastructure, probably knows more about the design of the modern internet than anyone else. And many other Internet experts agree with him.

„The debate about net neutrality has many facets, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on a false mental model of how the Internet works,“ says Dave Taht, an open source networking software developer. It`s easy to merge pairing and paid prioritization. Recently, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CT) introduced bills in both houses of Congress to prohibit so-called paid prioritization. The New York Times report pointed out that the bills „ban stores similar to the recent deal that allows Netflix to connect directly to Comcast`s system to avoid network congestion.“ However, this is not entirely true. The Online Competition and Consumer Choice Bill of 2014 (pp. 2476 and H.R. 4880) prohibits „paid prioritization“ as understood in the Federal Communications Commission`s conventional discourse on net neutrality.

The bills do not explicitly address interconnection or peering agreements like the Netflix-Comcast agreement. Similarly, in its open internet rules, the FCC has so far focused on regulating the potential damages of paid last-mile prioritization, rather than those of paid pairing/interconnection. As the FCC examines the recent barrage of comments on net neutrality, regulators should beware of rhetorically masked bad arguments that overlook the nuances between the two. It can be defined with the following analogy with net neutrality: Comcast`s solution: Charge Level 3 to deliver content to Comcast subscribers. This meant that Comcast was trying to charge users for connecting to the internet and data centers connecting with users – a doubly cost-effective solution. The companies have since entered into a cost-sharing agreement, the finest details of which are set out in secret peering agreements. For Ammori and others, this looks like an upheaval where service providers can be paid at both ends— by their home subscribers and by the web companies that deliver things to those subscribers. Ammori fears that ISPs will begin to throw their weight unfairly. „We don`t want AT&T and others to levy a tax and treat those who pay a tax better than others,“ he says.

What`s strange is that even some of the biggest proponents of „net neutrality“ downplay the importance of these peering agreements, claiming they have nothing to do with net neutrality. But this is largely a semantic argument. The fact is that no matter what terms you use to describe it, the situation could lead to unfair rules of the game. Advocates of net neutrality regulation include consumer advocates, human rights organizations such as Article 19[78] online companies, and some tech companies. [79] Many large Internet application companies are advocates of neutrality […].