nanog mailing list archives

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions


From: Joly MacFie <joly () punkcast com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 03:34:37 -0500

It's a popular concept that competition will resolve NN concerns. A couple
of weeks back I taped Barbara Van Schewick expounding on her theme that
blocking, discrimination, and/or access charges, ARE acceptable if at the
users - rather than provider's - discretion.
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1459

Afterwards, I asked her about the effect of competition. She remarked that,
according to her research, countries with competition, such as the Euro
unbundling regimes like the UK, actually had a much higher likelihood of
such network management practices that the duopolist USA as the providers
were under greater pressure to optimize the economic value of every bit put
through.

<http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1459>Plusnet's transparency would seem to be
indicative of a trend toward Van Schewick style solutions, where user's have
a bandwidth dashboard where they can opt to throttle
application-by-application, plus possibly receive targeted ads, to get a
cheaper connection.

j

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Michael Painter <tvhawaii () shaka com> wrote:

Ben Butler wrote:

Same hymn sheet, if they pay enough the cost averaging model works again
and we don't have to worry about latency critical or
transfer volume.  The problem is that they wont pay for it.


I became interested in these guys: http://www.plus.net/?home=hometop in
2008 because they were one of the first
to use DPI (and admit it) to enforce their TOS.  Every time I check their
site (~every 8-10months), they seem to have won another award.
Is 'Net Neutrality', the FCC, or something else preventing a model like
this from having success in the U.S.?
Or does it exixt and I just haven't heard about it?

--Michael





-----Original Message-----
From: wherrin () gmail com [mailto:wherrin () gmail com] On Behalf Of William
Herrin
Sent: 30 November 2010 04:17
To: Ben Butler
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning
Comcast'sActions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Ben Butler <ben.butler () c2internet net>
wrote:

Then consumer broadband came along, the subs went
down, the headline speeds went up, service delivery
becomes impossible in the face of the marketing BS
---- and here we are.


Hi Ben,

So you're saying: treat it like electrical service. I have a 200 amp
electrical service at my house. But I don't pay for a 200 amp service,
I pay for kilowatt-hours of usage.

There are several problems transplanting that billing model to
Internet service. The first you've already noticed - marketing
activity has rendered it unsalable. But that's not the only problem.

Another problem is that the price of electricity has been very stable
for a very long time, as has the general character of devices which
consume it. Consumers have a gut understanding of the cost of leaving
the light on. But what is a byte? How much to load that web page?
Watch that movie? And doesn't Moore's Law mean that 18 months from now
it should cost half as much? If I can't tell whether or not I'm being
ripped off, I'm probably being ripped off.

A third problem is the whole regulated monopoly thing. The electric
company had to be slapped down hard by the government to make its
billing process fair. Anything we can do to avoid that fate is money
in the bank, even if it means allowing the occasional customer to get
more than he paid for.

So if we can't bill you by usage, and at a consumer level we can't,
then we have to find another way. Statistics and prayer isn't working
out as well as we'd hoped so we're looking at double-billing schemes.
Bad plan!

Regards,
Bill Herrin






-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
  Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
---------------------------------------------------------------


Current thread: