[185979] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joly MacFie)
Fri Nov 20 13:31:17 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <564F5C59.6000901@ispn.net>
From: Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:30:34 -0500
To: Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net>
Reply-To: joly@punkcast.com
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
=E2=80=8BLogic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count=
against
the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications=E2=80=8B. What a=
m I
missing?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
> It's not. And that's the point.
>
> This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there
> are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes
> harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators
> compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net
> Neutrality] Because there are fewer operators there will be less
> competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take t=
he
> service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has
> no incentive to support the application well. [Note, we just reduced the
> freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the
> application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it
> slows growth.
>
> Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application
> (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per
> application bandwidth caps) is desirable.
--=20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
