The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
bedard.phil at gmail.com
Mon Apr 28 13:55:49 UTC 2014
MSOs run expansive IP networks today, including national dark fiber DWDM
networks. They all have way more people with IP expertise than they do RF
expertise. Even modern STBs use IP for many functions since they require
2-way communication, the last hold-out is your traditional TV delivery.
Even then most of the MSOs have IPTV installations in at least some
markets. That pendulum tipped a long long time ago now.
Level3 actually had to pay Comcast the last time this all came around.
They gained Netflix as a customer, the ratios of traffic a "transit"
provider was sending to Comcast because way out of balance, and Level3
succumbed and paid. Mainly since most of the traffic wasn't "transit"
traffic, it was Netflix traffic coming off Level3 CDNs. Transit
providers have "double-dipped" forever when it comes to ingress/egress
traffic to their own customers.
On 4/28/14, 9:05 AM, "Niels Bakker" <niels=nanog at bakker.net> wrote:
>>>Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers
>>>continue with their crappy last mile
>* jnanog at gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
>>If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you
>>passed a law that says all content providers big and small must have
>>settlement free access to the Internet paid for by residential
>>subscribers what do you think it would do to the price of broadband?
>Right now broadband providers pay a transit provider who then get paid
>by content providers to carry the bits, generally because broadband
>providers don't want to think about running IP networks because they
>their skills lie more in the television part of RF networks.
>Content providers are offering to take out that middleman, bringing
>everybody's cost down. Some broadband providers think they deserve
>more of a free ride than others. It also happens that those broadband
>providers are generally already more expensive than their competitors.
> -- Niels.
More information about the NANOG