Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

Brian Johnson bjohnson at drtel.com
Mon Sep 13 14:44:40 UTC 2010

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org]
>Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:32 AM
>To: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,Prioritized
>In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:50:21AM -0400, Joe
>> [cue endless thread of knee-jerk responses; can we just Godwin it
>> now please?]
>Of course Hitler was the first to propose pay-to-play internet
>traffic.  :)

Well done. :)

>Consumers are more in need of regulatory protection than business
>customers, at $19.95 a month they are viewed as expendable by many
>of the companies that offer consumer services, and are often served
>by a monopoly or duopoly, often at the encouragement of government.
>They can't vote with their dollars as we like to say, and need some

OK... so doesn't this speak to the commoditization of service providers?
I'm against more regulation and for competition.

>However, the proposed "remedies" of banning all filtering ever, or
>requiring free peering to everyone (taking both to the extreme, of
>course) don't match the operational real world.  Many of those who
>are pushing for network neutrality are pushing for an ideal that
>the network simply cannot deliver, no matter what.

Agreed. The bulk of the "Net Neutrality" crowd lives in a dream world.
Most (maybe some, maybe a few depending on your view) approach filtering
as a solution to a technical problem not as a money making proposition.
I have always espoused it only as a fix to technical (security, abuse
and the like) issues.

>Rather than network neutrality, I'd simply like to see truth in
>advertising applied.  If my provider advertises "8 Mbps" service
>then I should be able to get 8 Mbps from Google, or Yahoo, or you,
>or anyone else on the network, provided of course they have also
>purchased an 8 Mbps or higher plan from their provider.  I don't
>care if it is done with transit, peering, paid priorization, or any
>other mechanism, those are back end details that will change over
>time.  I don't care if it is Google building their own network, or
>you buying 8Mbps service from your local monopoly ISP.

Explain how the provider of access is supposed to be able to control all
of the systems outside it's control to get a specific speed from a
content provider. If you are espousing contracts with each content
provider, then you will quickly be destroying the Internet.

We advertise a rate and ensure we have no congestion on our Internet
connection to ensure that all demands for traffic are met on our side. I
cannot ensure that site X will not be flooded or have other restrictions
on its bandwidth that will prevent your full utilization of the

- Brian J.

 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.

More information about the NANOG mailing list