[171378] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rick Astley)
Sun Apr 27 23:08:04 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <535DBDFA.405@mtcc.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 23:07:55 -0400
From: Rick Astley <jnanog@gmail.com>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue
with their crappy last mile
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
access to the Internet paid for by residential subscribers what do you
think it would do to the price of broadband?
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
> On 04/27/2014 05:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Beyond that, there=E2=80=99s a more subtle argument also going on about =
whether
>> $EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to $CONTENT_A and
>> less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method for encouraging
>> subscribers to select $CONTENT_A over $CONTENT_B by affecting the relati=
ve
>> performance. This becomes much stickier when you face the reality that i=
n
>> many places, $EYEBALL_PROVIDER has an effective monopoly as the only pla=
yer
>> choosing to offer services at a useful level of bandwidth/etc. (If that)=
.
>>
>
>
> Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue
> with their crappy last mile
> service that is shameful for a supposed first world country?
>
> Cue up Randy on why this is all such a painful joke.
>
> Mike
>
