[171441] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Apr 29 22:35:25 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <31421771.2411.1398793733859.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:14:59 -0700
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
>=20
>> What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing =
$CABLECO to
>> leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an=20=
>> operational disadvantage in access for that competing product.
>=20
> I was with you right up til here.
>=20
>> The so-called =93internet fast lane=94 is a euphemism for allowing =
$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.
>=20
> So, how do you explain, and justify -- if you do -- cablecos who use
> IPTV to deliver their mainline video, and supply VoIP telephone...
>=20
> 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.
I don=92t explain it, don=92t justify it, don=92t support it.
> Those are =93fast lanes" for TV and Voice traffic, are they not?
Carving the pipe up into lanes to begin with is kind of questionable =
IMHO.
I realize it=92s tradition, but if you think about it, it was only =
necessary
when things were TDM/FDM. Once everything is IP, dividing the IP up =
among
different TDM/FDM is just a way to take one large fast lane and turn it =
into
slow lanes (some slower than others, perhaps) where some traffic can be
given preferential treatment.
> They are (largely) anticompetitive, and unavailable to other =
providers.
Agreed=85 I thought that=92s what I said above.
Owen
