Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
hugo at slabnet.com
Thu Dec 10 19:41:41 UTC 2015
On Thu 2015-Dec-10 13:32:25 -0600, Chris Adams <cma at cmadams.net> wrote:
>Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> said:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
>> <william.r.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > is that still net neutrality?
>> who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
>Any why the desire for extra regulation for Internet services?
>Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do things like this all the
>time, especially when they are busy (congested). I had a package ship
>Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first
>move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay
>extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special
>arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today. I should get it tomorrow.
>I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers
>have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority. How
>is this different from Internet traffic?
Your package being delayed was based on your service level (what you paid
for the service) not the contents of your package or the sender's identity.
If we're going to get into the details of the sender's relationship to the
shipping company (i.e. "(and the shipper doesn't have special
arrangements)"), note that situation is more analogous to traffic where
both the sender and receiver are getting transit from the same provider.
If there were two shipping companies (sender uses shipping company A;
receiver uses shipping company B, and A & B hand off to each other), the
situation would be closer to the discussion.
>Chris Adams <cma at cmadams.net>
hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber
PGP fingerprint (B178313E):
CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E
(also on Signal)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the NANOG