Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
richb.hanover at gmail.com
Fri Dec 11 15:37:52 UTC 2015
> On Dec 11, 2015, at 7:00 AM, 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?
I think this conflates arrangements that retailers/shippers make with each other and the agreements that consumers have with their own network supplier.
a) As a customer of a retailer that ships physical packages, my contract is with the retailer. They promise to deliver on a certain date, or they yell at the shipper.
b) As an *network subscriber*, my contract/agreement is with my (cable/DSL/satellite/mobile) ISP. I pay them to deliver my bits - without any discussion of where they come from. Most of these agreements don't provide much of a service level. But I still have the understanding that *all* data coming to/from me will have substantially the rate, latency, and packet loss that is advertised.
Specifically, I have the expectation that data from two streams (say, one from a Binge On participant, one from an unsubsidized source like an Ubuntu ISO download) should arrive with substantially the same rate, latency and packet loss.
I can then remain ignorant/uninvolved with whether any source wants to use CDNs, or to subsidize a subscriber's data plan, or make any other arrangement between the data source and the intervening providers. As long as data is arriving at the contracted rate, I am getting what I paid for.
Isn't that a useful and testable basis for understanding Net Neutrality? Doesn't this address (at least part of) the argument about guaranteeing equal access to all content whether subsidized or not?
More information about the NANOG