Re: Mis-framed statement
Agreed. The argument from the ISP is that Netflix should stop putting so much effort into net-neut lobbying and more cash into caching. The two issues are unrelated except that the resources being put into one are eating up resources which really need to be put into the other.
While I understand the ISP's problems and irritations with Netflix, we do need a well-funded net-neut supporter. Sub-headline quotes were not well chosen as it appeared that the ISP was anti-net-neut (pay for traffic) when in fact they just want them to pay for their own CDN kit, which is quite reasonable and not anti-net-neut at all.
There is no little reason for the Netflix boxes not to run as a proxy. Even Squid can do some clever stuff with pulling content from youtube and then serving it as static content from a local web server. There's no reason for netflix not to do something similar and ease the load on systems where much of the data is never served. The performance hit from running as a proxy is nothing more than having no content servers at all and its limited to the first user. There's no reason not to pre-cache things you know will be popular. For the sake of a slight performance boost for the first user, Netflix is being rather obnoxious.
I'm a little surprised by the proxy/server ratio in the real world. Here in Australia we have really poor access to the Packman repo's. There are mirrors but the update lags cause problems with failed package installations. I have no idea why you would want to dedicate disk to a mirror when you could offer a front-end proxy which will always be up to date.