> > > They want something that can provide a domination service within their > own walled gardens. > Also not correct. And last time I checked the balance sheets of companies > in these sectors - *video streaming services were losing money while > provision of internet services were financially healthy. *
Indeed, Jason: https://www.vulture.com/2023/06/streaming-industry-netflix-max-disney-hulu-apple-tv-prime-video-peacock-paramount.html All the best, Frank Frantisek (Frank) Borsik https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 Skype: casioa5302ca frantisek.bor...@gmail.com On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:53 PM dan via Rpm <r...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 7:17 AM Livingood, Jason via LibreQoS < > libre...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> On 9/29/23, 00:54, "Jonathan Morton" <chromati...@gmail.com <mailto: >> chromati...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > Some ISPs began to actively degrade Netflix traffic, in particular by >> refusing to provision adequate peering capacity at the nodes through which >> Netflix traffic predominated >> >> That is not true and really not worth re-litigating here. >> >> > NN regulations forced ISPs to carry Netflix traffic with reasonable >> levels of service, even though they didn't want to for purely selfish and >> greedy commercial reasons. >> >> NN regulations played no role whatsoever in the resolution of that >> conflict - a business arrangement was reached, just as it was in the SK >> Telecom example recently: >> https://about.netflix.com/en/news/sk-telecom-sk-broadband-and-netflix-establish-strategic-partnership-to >> >> > ISPs behind L4S actively do not want a technology that works end-to-end >> over the general Internet. >> >> That's simply not true. As someone running an L4S field trial right now - >> we want the technology to get the widest possible deployment and be fully >> end-to-end. Why else would there be so much effort to ensure that ECN and >> DSCP marks can traverse network domain boundaries for example? Why else >> would there be strong app developer interest? What evidence do you have to >> show that anyone working on L4S want to create a walled garden? If >> anything, it seems the opposite of 5G network slicing, which seems to me >> personally to be another 3GPP run at walled garden stuff (like IMS). >> Ultimately it is like a lot of other IETF work -- it is an interesting >> technology and we'll have to see whether it gets good adoption - the >> 'market' will decide. >> >> > They want something that can provide a domination service within their >> own walled gardens. >> >> Also not correct. And last time I checked the balance sheets of companies >> in these sectors - video streaming services were losing money while >> provision of internet services were financially healthy. >> >> JL >> >> >> > I think this stuff degrades into conspiracy theory often enough. While I > don't discount the possibility of collusion, I don't give these > people/groups credit enough to pull of a mass scale conspiracy either.... > If netflix is jammed down to small of a pipe at an ISP, that's more likely > (IMO...) disorganization or incompetence or disinterest over conspiracy. > I feel the same about government in general... > _______________________________________________ > Rpm mailing list > r...@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm >
_______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
