[171433] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Tue Apr 29 13:49:09 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:48:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <5E7F8485-1516-45CD-A05C-9BC5FB6DBE76@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
> What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing $CABLECO t=
o
> leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an=20
> operational disadvantage in access for that competing product.
I was with you right up til here.
> The so-called =E2=80=9Cinternet fast lane=E2=80=9D is a euphemism for all=
owing $CABLECO
> to put competing video products into a newly developed slow-lane while
> limiting the existing path to their own products and those content
> providers that are able to and choose to pay these additional fees.
So, how do you explain, and justify -- if you do -- cablecos who use
IPTV to deliver their mainline video, and supply VoIP telephone...
and use DOCSIS to put that traffic on separate pipes to the end terminal
from their IP service, an advantage which providers who might compete
with them don't have -- *even*, I think, if they are FCC mandated=20
alternative IP providers who get aggregated access to the cablemodem,=20
as do Earthlink and the local Internet Junction in my market, which
can (at least in theory) still be provisioned as your cablemodem=20
supplier for Bright House (Advance/Newhouse) customers.
Those are "fast lanes" for TV and Voice traffic, are they not?
They are (largely) anticompetitive, and unavailable to other providers.
Cheers,
-- jra
--=20
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.=
com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2=
100
Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover =
DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1=
274
