On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Owen DeLong" <o...@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
