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

Tue Apr 29 17:48:53 UTC 2014

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>

> What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing $CABLECO to
> leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an 
> operational disadvantage in access for that competing product.

I was with you right up til here.

> The so-called “internet fast lane” is a euphemism for allowing $CABLECO
> to put competing video products into a newly developed slow-lane while
> limiting the existing path to their own products and those content
> providers that are able to and choose to pay these additional fees.

So, how do you explain, and justify -- if you do -- cablecos who use
IPTV to deliver their mainline video, and supply VoIP telephone...

and use DOCSIS to put that traffic on separate pipes to the end terminal
from their IP service, an advantage which providers who might compete
with them don't have -- *even*, I think, if they are FCC mandated 
alternative IP providers who get aggregated access to the cablemodem, 
as do Earthlink and the local Internet Junction in my market, which
can (at least in theory) still be provisioned as your cablemodem 
supplier for Bright House (Advance/Newhouse) customers.

Those are "fast lanes" for TV and Voice traffic, are they not?

They are (largely) anticompetitive, and unavailable to other providers.

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