In the last two years, there were periods where YouTube was unusable for me in the early to mid evenings. My provider freely admitted that their current peering arrangement just wasn't good enough for all the traffic that their customers were creating by watching youtube videos.

Over time, this was fixed, only to return later, at which point it was fixed again.

Huge kudos to my provider (Cablecom in Switzerland) for actually fixing this and even in a somewhat timely manner.

But.

As more and more of the internet users traffic gets centralized to a few big services (Netflix, YouTube, to some extent Facebook), the usual unbureaucratic peering agreements start to become less and less feasible as traffic starts to be centralized with a few very major content providers.

Not only that: some players might start to produce so much traffic that it starts to become useful to go as far as to start doing special proxy solutions for specific content providers (another provider here in Switzerland has a special solution in place for youtube after talking with Google).

At which point does all that effort in order to have your end-users be able to access some of these huge content providers stop being worth it in the name of net neutrality?

Providing network neutrality is easy when everything just works, but when you have to make new peering agreements, build new pipes or create special infrastructure just for one content provider that doesn't pay you a cent, then that whole neutrality thing becomes very inconvenient and, I have to say, unfair to the providers.

Yes. I really, really want network neutrality, but I see that aside of all the political and business-model-preservation issues, we are running into technical issues too and those need solving too.