On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Brad Beyenhof <[email protected]> wrote:

> But the carrier does have a say whether that water came from a river, was 
> desalinated from the ocean, or elsewhere.
> 
> The difference here is that, as a consumer, you both receive IP traffic *and* 
> request where it comes from. You don't do that with your other utilities.

+1

Or -- IF YOU WANT THAT CHOICE -- (as with electric companies), you pay more for 
the more expensive solutions. So if you want the IP packets that are costing 
Verizon more money because they're coming from that way overloaded peering 
point that requires constant care and feeding, you pay more.

Look, I've never understood what Net Neutrality folks think they're going to 
"win", because let me forecast how this plays out if they can't charge 
content-providers for what amounts to network abuse:

1.) Metered billing. Yep, you pay by the Megabyte of traffic. Here's your low 
rate for "having a pipe of width X" and here's your rate for every "gallon" of 
traffic that flows through that pipe. Just like your electric, water, sewer, 
gas, etc., etc., bills today.  .... OR

2.) Fuck it, EVERYONE'S rates go up to a price equal to what it costs to 
maintain the infrastructure for the minority of "abusers". ie., gamgam is now 
paying more to read gmail because you want your unfettered access to Orange Is 
The New Black.

3.) ISPs simply say "screw it" and freeze the investment in architecture in 
place and don't put another dime into it. If you think that's unlikely, ask 
yourself "when was the last FIOS city rolled out most recently?"   Answer: 
YEARS AGO because VZN has already done the math and realized that IP traffic on 
FIOS scale is a LOSING PROPOSITION for them. If your town doesn't have Verizon 
FIOS today, it never will. EVEN IF they've already run the fiber for it. 
Because lighting up that fiber means incurring a customer base that they lose 
money on. Better to write off the CapEx than to have to write off the CapEx 
**and** take monthly OpEx losses on it as well.

Do any of those solutions sound attractive to ANYONE?

D


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
 http://lopsa.org/

Reply via email to