Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Joly MacFie joly at
Fri Nov 20 18:30:34 UTC 2015

​Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against
the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications​. What am I

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson <blake at> wrote:

> It's not. And that's the point.
> This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there
> are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes
> harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators
> compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net
> Neutrality]  Because there are fewer operators there will be less
> competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the
> service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has
> no incentive to support the application well.  [Note, we just reduced the
> freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the
> application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it
> slows growth.
> Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application
> (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per
> application bandwidth caps) is desirable.

Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast

More information about the NANOG mailing list