[129733] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Eisenberg)
Fri Sep 17 15:05:26 2010
From: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:05:00 +0000
In-Reply-To: <4C937192.2090603@brightok.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> It's a matter of viewpoint. It's convenient to talk about net-neutrality =
when it's
> scoped, but not when we widen the scope. Customer A gets better service t=
han
> Customer B because he want to a site that had prioritization. Never mind =
that
> while they fight over the saturated link, Customer C beat both of them be=
cause
> he was on a separate segment that wasn't saturated. All 3 paid the same
> amount of money. C > A > B, yet C doesn't fall into this net-neutrality
> discussion, and the provider, who wants to keep customers, has more C
> customers than A, and more A customers than B, so B is the most expendabl=
e.
It's convenient to talk about NN when we're talking about NN, and not about=
the ethical implications of peering with Comcast but not with ATT. There =
are things that NN is, and there are things that it isn't. There are a goo=
d deal of ethical and emotional issues involved, and while they're interest=
ing to opine about, they're difficult to successfully argue.
However, from a purely technical perspective, your above example illustrate=
s my point. Customer A and B both lose. Why? Because prioritization and =
destination based discrimination are not real solutions. Capacity is. Cus=
tomer A and B have saturation and discrimination. Customer C has capacity.=
Want to keep A and B (and your reputation)? Add capacity.
> My viewpoint is that of an ISP, and as such, I think of net-neutrality at=
a level
> above some last mile that's saturated at some other ISP.
I have the same point of view but it appears that we disagree anyways. It =
must be the case that the perspective does not define the opinion. Appreci=
ated the thinly veiled appeal to authority, though.
Capacity is cheap. Discriminatory traffic management for-profit is a fanta=
stically expensive way of killing off your customer base in exchange for sh=
ort-term revenue opportunities.
You MUST construct additional pylons, or the guy that does WILL take your c=
ustomers.
Nathan
