Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
bill at herrin.us
Fri Dec 11 16:37:05 UTC 2015
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:51 PM, 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.
You're assuming that:
(A) Verizon/ATT will prevent organizations from routing some of their
IP addresses via paid zero-rate connections and other IP addresses via
settlement-free peering, and
(B) organizations which pay for zero-rate will elect not to offer
Verizon/ATT customers a choice between paying indirectly for more
bandwidth or using the bandwidth they already have.
Point (A) is not an unreasonable assumption, but in that case the
fraud lies in refusing settlement-free peering when the subscriber has
already paid for that bandwidth to happen. It's past time the big
networks got spanked for this sort of misbehavior. Let's not cloud the
issue by objecting to related behavior that's actually ethical.
Point (B) is a free market business decision on the part of Netflix,
et. al. If they make a poor one, the competitors nipping at their
heels will eat their lunch.
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
More information about the NANOG