On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:53:51PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: > In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: > > http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html > > " Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a > toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or > Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to > deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential > subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their > network without charge."
The important phrase there is "requested by ISP residential subscribers". You will see this material again. > This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this > is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the > fashions change: "You've designed your network to handle the traffic > demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 > times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not > anticipating my innovation." A more accurate phrasing would be, "You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing, while *telling your customers they can stream video*? That's cute, now provision a few more circuits to your upstreams to handle the traffic that you said you could handle, instead of trying to leverage your monopoly position to rent-seek off me." Entrenched monopoly is what this is all about, ultimately. Nobody in Australia (my home town) talks about Net Neutrality. We don't care. We don't *have* to care. Because no ISP over here currently has a sufficiently captive market to permit them to play chicken with a content provider. Any ISP who did, and held their customer base to ransom, would very quickly find themselves losing customers -- at least that segment of the market that used the relevant content provider's services. Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing for the ISP -- less traffic, lower costs, better margins... but at least customers would be able to choose. No such luck in the US, where some eye-wateringly high percentage of users have no choice in who provides them a given service. - Matt
