[173553] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Palmer)
Mon Jul 28 02:43:10 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:43:00 +1000
From: Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:53:51PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
> In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free:
>
> http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html
>
> " Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a
> toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or
> Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to
> deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential
> subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their
> network without charge."
The important phrase there is "requested by ISP residential subscribers".
You will see this material again.
> This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this
> is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the
> fashions change: "You've designed your network to handle the traffic
> demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40
> times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not
> anticipating my innovation."
A more accurate phrasing would be, "You've designed your network to handle
the traffic demands of web browsing, while *telling your customers they can
stream video*? That's cute, now provision a few more circuits to your
upstreams to handle the traffic that you said you could handle, instead of
trying to leverage your monopoly position to rent-seek off me."
Entrenched monopoly is what this is all about, ultimately. Nobody in
Australia (my home town) talks about Net Neutrality. We don't care. We
don't *have* to care. Because no ISP over here currently has a sufficiently
captive market to permit them to play chicken with a content provider. Any
ISP who did, and held their customer base to ransom, would very quickly find
themselves losing customers -- at least that segment of the market that used
the relevant content provider's services. Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad
thing for the ISP -- less traffic, lower costs, better margins... but at
least customers would be able to choose. No such luck in the US, where some
eye-wateringly high percentage of users have no choice in who provides them
a given service.
- Matt
