Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity

Mon Jul 28 19:18:01 UTC 2014

On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:53 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote:

> In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free:
> 
> http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html
> 
> " Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge.”

Which is as it should be… There’s no reason $EYEBALL_ISP should get to double-bill both their customer and Netflix et. al. for the same traffic.

There are a few possible cases…

<USER><EYEBALL_ISP><CONTENT_PROVIDER>

In this case, USER is paying Eyeball ISP and the costs are minimized.

<USER><EYEBALL_ISP><PUBLIC_EXCHANGE><CONTENT_PROVIDER>

In this case, USER pays Eyeball ISP and EYEBALL_ISP and CONTENT_PROVIDER pay PUBLIC_EXCHANGE (minimal fee usually) and
costs are still relatively small.

<USER><EYEBALL_ISP><TRANSIT_ISP><CONTENT_PROVIDER>

In this case, USER pays Eyeball ISP and CONTENT_PROVIDER pays TRANSIT_ISP. Since both ISPs have been paid by their respective customers, there shouldn’t be any need for money to change hands between TRANSIT_ISP and EYEBALL_ISP.

This is the most expensive case for CONTENT_PROVIDER and possibly USER.

In all of the above scenarios, EYEBALL_ISPs costs are very similar. There’s really no valid reason for EYEBALL_ISP to attempt to extort money from CONTENT_PROVIDER in order to deliver packets requested by USER who already pays them.

No matter how much you spin this or how many times you try to contort it to argue that CONTENT_PROVIDER should be forced to subsidize USER’s service from EYEBALL_ISP, the argument just doesn’t hold water if you actually analyze it.

> This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: "You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation.”

It seems pretty close to the traditional understanding of net neutrality to me. A neutral network requires that Network A doesn’t try to jack Network B for payment to deliver packets requested by users paying Network A.

However, I realize that these facts interfere with your role as a shill^wpoopy-head, so obviously you can’t accept them as in any way legitimate.

Owen

> 
> Very wow.
> 
> RB
> 
> 
> On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
>>> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for
>>> the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge
>>> providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the
>>> FCC to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?"
>> In a word: no.  Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way to get
>> their packets to where they want them to go.  Netflix doesn't get to use the
>> Internet "for free"; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and
>> Cogent.
>> 
>> - Matt
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Richard Bennett
> Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
> Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
> Editor, High Tech Forum