The Netflix-Comcast agreement isn’t a network neutrality violation, but it is a problem

[Commentary] It wasn’t long after Comcast and Netflix finally settled a festering peering dispute that people starting claiming that this resolution means the end of network neutrality. But it’s not. For better or worse, the legal framework governing net neutrality in the US -- the recently gutted Open Internet Order -- doesn’t touch the issue of network interconnection and peering. But even if Netflix (and other companies) paying Comcast for direct access to its network isn’t a violation of net neutrality, it is a concern.

The fear is that Netflix can’t provide a decent-quality video streaming service unless it pays to peer with Comcast, either directly or through a transit provider that has a direct interconnection. Netflix has mitigated this issue by paying transit providers that peer directly with Comcast to carry its traffic. But as anyone who covers the Internet knows, Internet giants benefit if they can control their own infrastructure and costs as they get bigger. With 30 percent of US broadband traffic, Netflix is certainly big enough to want to control the costs of delivering its bits to the end consumer. Given that Microsoft, Google and many others have already decided to pay Comcast for a direct connection or pay a transit provider with a direct connection, Comcast has now enshrined its version of peering -- one that requires companies that send a lot of traffic to its network to pay. Another issue is that Comcast is setting the rates to let content providers get their traffic onto its network rates in a relative vacuum. These agreements aren’t transparent, even within the industry. These rates could go up over time, and they essentially act as a tax on the Internet that the web content companies have to pay to ensure their service gets to the end user. They pay this tax directly if they are a big enough provider, or indirectly by locating their servers in places that peer directly with Comcast or buying transit.