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

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Apr 29 18:14:59 UTC 2014

On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at> wrote:

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

I don’t explain it, don’t justify it, don’t support it.

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

Carving the pipe up into lanes to begin with is kind of questionable IMHO.
I realize it’s tradition, but if you think about it, it was only necessary
when things were TDM/FDM. Once everything is IP, dividing the IP up among
different TDM/FDM is just a way to take one large fast lane and turn it into
slow lanes (some slower than others, perhaps) where some traffic can be
given preferential treatment.

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

Agreed… I thought that’s what I said above.


More information about the NANOG mailing list