Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
owen at delong.com
Fri Dec 11 05:20:14 UTC 2015
> On Dec 10, 2015, at 18:51 , Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog at vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote:
>> Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer,
>> it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.
> If the retail customer pays for $70 for 100 gigs of UBB, and uses 50
> gigs of Netflix, then the result is that the customer is still paying
> $70 for 100 gigs of data, and Netflix now has to pay for 50 gigs of data.
> The principle of paying "once" is fine, the problem is that no ISP is
> going to reduce your actual bill/ARPU in exchange for charging part of
> your iusage to someone else. You will still pay $70 for the same
> package except your bill will show you used only 40 gigs instead of 90
> (because 50 were not charged to you).
> So the end result is that thoes big ISPs will charge twice for the data,
> it is their goal: make more money.
Except that what happens in practice, at least in many of the developing
markets is that users use the services that pay for ZRB and do not use
or do not use much of the services that don’t. There remains a single
payer for the bits, because many of the people don’t even have a 1GB
data plan, they just use the free data that they can get to the services
that are paying for their data.
Another scenario, more common in the developed world is people buy
a small amount of data and focus the bulk of their usage on services
that pay for the ZRB, so they may pay for 3GB and use only 2 or 2.5
GB of data that they pay for, but they’ll still stream 20 or 30G of ZRB
traffic, which results effectively in the ZRB usage being charged to the
More information about the NANOG