[173575] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Jul 28 15:21:57 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <53D5E56F.2050602@bennett.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:18:01 -0700
To: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:53 PM, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com> =
wrote:
> In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free:
>=20
> =
http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.htm=
l
>=20
> " 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.=94
Which is as it should be=85 There=92s no reason $EYEBALL_ISP should get =
to double-bill both their customer and Netflix et. al. for the same =
traffic.
There are a few possible cases=85
<USER><EYEBALL_ISP><CONTENT_PROVIDER>
In this case, USER is paying Eyeball ISP and the costs are minimized.
<USER><EYEBALL_ISP><PUBLIC_EXCHANGE><CONTENT_PROVIDER>
In this case, USER pays Eyeball ISP and EYEBALL_ISP and CONTENT_PROVIDER =
pay PUBLIC_EXCHANGE (minimal fee usually) and
costs are still relatively small.
<USER><EYEBALL_ISP><TRANSIT_ISP><CONTENT_PROVIDER>
In this case, USER pays Eyeball ISP and CONTENT_PROVIDER pays =
TRANSIT_ISP. Since both ISPs have been paid by their respective =
customers, there shouldn=92t be any need for money to change hands =
between TRANSIT_ISP and EYEBALL_ISP.
This is the most expensive case for CONTENT_PROVIDER and possibly USER.
In all of the above scenarios, EYEBALL_ISPs costs are very similar. =
There=92s really no valid reason for EYEBALL_ISP to attempt to extort =
money from CONTENT_PROVIDER in order to deliver packets requested by =
USER who already pays them.
No matter how much you spin this or how many times you try to contort it =
to argue that CONTENT_PROVIDER should be forced to subsidize USER=92s =
service from EYEBALL_ISP, the argument just doesn=92t hold water if you =
actually analyze it.
> 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.=94
It seems pretty close to the traditional understanding of net neutrality =
to me. A neutral network requires that Network A doesn=92t try to jack =
Network B for payment to deliver packets requested by users paying =
Network A.
However, I realize that these facts interfere with your role as a =
shill^wpoopy-head, so obviously you can=92t accept them as in any way =
legitimate.
Owen
>=20
> Very wow.
>=20
> RB
>=20
>=20
> On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
>>> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for
>>> the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge
>>> providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the
>>> FCC to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?"
>> In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way =
to get
>> their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to =
use the
>> Internet "for free"; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 =
and
>> Cogent.
>>=20
>> - Matt
>>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Richard Bennett
> Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
> Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
> Editor, High Tech Forum
