nanog mailing list archives
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:14:59 -0700
On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----From: "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com>What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing $CABLECO to leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an operational disadvantage in access for that competing product.I was with you right up til here.The so-called “internet fast lane” is a euphemism for allowing $CABLECO to put competing video products into a newly developed slow-lane while limiting the existing path to their own products and those content providers that are able to and choose to pay these additional fees.So, how do you explain, and justify -- if you do -- cablecos who use IPTV to deliver their mainline video, and supply VoIP telephone... and use DOCSIS to put that traffic on separate pipes to the end terminal from their IP service, an advantage which providers who might compete with them don't have -- *even*, I think, if they are FCC mandated alternative IP providers who get aggregated access to the cablemodem, as do Earthlink and the local Internet Junction in my market, which can (at least in theory) still be provisioned as your cablemodem supplier for Bright House (Advance/Newhouse) customers.
I don’t explain it, don’t justify it, don’t support it.
Those are “fast lanes" for TV and Voice traffic, are they not?
Carving the pipe up into lanes to begin with is kind of questionable IMHO. I realize it’s tradition, but if you think about it, it was only necessary when things were TDM/FDM. Once everything is IP, dividing the IP up among different TDM/FDM is just a way to take one large fast lane and turn it into slow lanes (some slower than others, perhaps) where some traffic can be given preferential treatment.
They are (largely) anticompetitive, and unavailable to other providers.
Agreed… I thought that’s what I said above. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post, (continued)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Suresh Ramasubramanian (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jay Ashworth (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Doug Barton (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Lee (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Owen DeLong (Apr 28)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jay Ashworth (Apr 29)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Jean-Francois Mezei (Apr 29)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Owen DeLong (Apr 29)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Owen DeLong (Apr 26)
- Message not available
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Larry Sheldon (Apr 26)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Barry Shein (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Phil Bedard (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Bob Evans (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Barry Shein (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post goemon (Apr 27)
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Message not available
- Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Larry Sheldon (Apr 27)