What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
a.harrowell at gmail.com
Mon May 5 11:11:17 UTC 2014
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:25 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Charles N Wyble <charles at thefnf.org> wrote:
>> On 4/27/2014 3:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand
>>> through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for
>>> popular stuff, encrypted midnight downloads to your DVR, and the
>>> cablecos would split the revenue with content backends like Netflix.
>> So why hasn't someone like he or cogent done this?
> Because 30 years later the big content owners still hate VCRs.
> Streaming doesn't bother them so much but they avail themselves of
> every opportunity to say no to the end-user recorded content.
> This is hardly a surprise... A century later they still hate the first
> sale doctrine too and avail themselves of every opportunity to
> undermine it.
This UKNOF presentation gives another reason - the distribution of
demand for content is such that "content bundling", i.e. pro-active
push of content to users' machines based on predicted demand, doesn't
provide much benefit compared to "historical cache", i.e. caching in
the usual sense.
> Bill Herrin
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the NANOG