[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.

[wayoutthere]

> 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.

It almost always is a cost savings -- I've worked enough interconnect agreements and the dispute is always over value capture (who gets how much). Transit is expensive; but transit is paid by the originator. The ISPs incur indirect costs that are harder to measure, so it has to be negotiated.

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

It's not? Because big companies absolutely get preferential treatment with mail too. USPS does things for Amazon they do not for anyone else.

It hasn't always been like this, but deregulation craze in the 90s/2000s weakened a lot of the protections we had against it.