[gnode]

I don't see how this is any more against network neutrality than regional mirrors / CDNs.

This is an optimisation which can be made by the game developer / host, where the alternative would be prioritisation by the ISP, which would go against net neutrality.

[wayoutthere]

The ISPs charge lots of money for the CDNs and private networks that want to connect to their customer networks at the edge. This is the net neutrality argument; it's almost impossible to get good performance at scale without paying extra for it.

I actually think the problem this is meant to solve is an example of why, from a purely pragmatic sense, net neutrality is effectively impossible to deliver at scale. Someone has to eat the costs somewhere, and the publishers are the ones who benefit the most financially.

[wbl]

A bike courier or lawyer racing to the court house benefits far more from the roads then others but doesn't pay more. Common carrier regulations were widespread in moving atoms.

[throw0101a]

> The ISPs charge lots of money for the CDNs and private networks that want to connect to their customer networks at the edge.

CDNs can get closer to end-users by peering at Internet Exchange Points (IXPs).

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_exchange_point

Maybe not as close/fast as right on an ISP's network, but probably closer than a trans-continent or trans-ocean hop.

[gnode]

This is not the net neutrality argument. It should be a cost saving for both the CDN and ISP to connect directly, because this saves both parties needing to pay for IP transit. That the ISP may charge the CDN for this is because in a vacuous regulatory environment they have been allowed to ransom their customers.

The behaviour of discriminating based on application or financial potential is not tolerated (legally or socially) in other common carriers like mail.