Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

[Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>]

On 04/27/2014 03:15 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hugo Slabbert" <hslabbert () stargate ca>
>
> > But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge
> > network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to
> > Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really
> > anything more nuanced here than:
> >
> > 1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their
> > network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with.
> > (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life).
> > 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market.
> > 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications
> > and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on.
> > 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with
> > the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy
> > their customers' usage.
>
> You may be new here, but I'm not, and I read it exactly the same way.
>
> > How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more
> > traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I
> > have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or
> > add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I
> > missing something?
>
> It is absolutely the problem of the eyeball carrier who gambled on a
> given oversubscription ratio and discovered that it's called gambling
> because sometimes, you lose.

+1

What I don't understand is why Netflix et al are not doing a PR campaign 
to explain this to the end users.

Doug