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

Sun Apr 27 22:15:21 UTC 2014

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hugo Slabbert" <hslabbert at 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.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274