[171417] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hugo Slabbert)
Mon Apr 28 15:30:23 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:30:14 -0700
From: Hugo Slabbert <hslabbert@stargate.ca>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <535E8A42.2090207@pari.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman
>in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of
>that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile
>network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be.
=2E..which turns the eyeball network provider into a gatekeeper. I think
the clearest comment on this so far has been from Kristopher Doyen in the "=
What=20
Net Neutrality should and should not cover" thread, which goes into players=
=20
abusing their position in the market to extract additional revenue with stu=
ff=20
like this.
Packets are packets are packets; aside from a sense of entitlement, why sho=
uld=20
the eyeball network provider get "a piece of the action" simply because the=
=20
packets are revenue-generating for a 3rd party? This incurs a massive=20
additional barrier to entry for any business that depends on the internet f=
or=20
their income, as now their revenue has to not only cover their own overhead=
and=20
profits but also need to fund additional profits for ANY eyeball network=20
provider that believes they're entitled to a "piece of the action". Why sh=
ould=20
I subsidize your business?
E.g. I sell a widget on my website. An eyeball network provider's customer=
=20
visits my website to purchase some widgets. "Hey", says eyeball network=20
operator, "you're making money off of packets traversing my network! Pay up=
!"
I know I've shifted this a bit from revenue-generating streaming content to=
a=20
generic e-commerce situation, but how is that different except for the scal=
e of=20
traffic? If the eyeball network provider sees fit to charge Netflix $x/Gbp=
s=20
because of the $y/Gbps that Netflix is making from that traffic, the call o=
n=20
when to charge rests solely with the eyeball network operator. If my widge=
t=20
ecommerce store makes $1000y/Gbps because the traffic is small but revenue=
=20
high, getting "a piece of the action" could mean $1000x/Gbps because there =
is=20
more value "per packet".
--
Hugo
On Mon 2014-Apr-28 10:05:06 -0700, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
>On 04/27/2014 06:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hugo Slabbert" <hslabbert@stargate.ca>
>>> I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly
>>> been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the
>>> links.
>> And the answer is: at whose instance (to use an old Bell term) is that
>> traffic moving.
>>
>> The answer is "at the instance of the eyeball's customers".
>>
>> So there's no call for the eyeball to charge the provider for it.
>>
>>
>
>Now, Jay, I don't often disagree with you, but today it occurred to me
>the business case here (I've had to put on my businessman's hat far too
>frequently lately, in dealing with trying to make a data center
>operation profitable, or at least break-even). This should be taken
>more as a 'devil's advocate' post more than anything else, and if I
>missed someone else in the thread making the same point, my apologies to
>the Department of Redundancy Department.
>
>Sure, the content provider is paying for their transit, and the eyeball
>customer is paying for their transit. But the content provider is
>further charging the eyeball's customer for the content, and thus is
>making money off of the eyeball network's pipes. Think like a
>businessman for a moment instead of like an operator.
>
>Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as
>getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, by
>the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman
>in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of
>that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile
>network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be. How many
>mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list? Well, in this case
>it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer list. The
>argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, disguising the
>real, profit-sharing, motive.
>
--C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=HzF3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc--
