On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:56:48 -0400, Derek Balling wrote:
On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:49 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
But you have no problem talking about the Evil Nasty megacorp
Netflix and how they are bombarding the poor Verizon network with
their unwanted traffic.
I don't claim Netflix is a megacorp. Nobody could. They're not.
They're a scrappy upstart who is trying to take advantage of the way
traffic has traditionally been routed, but a "victim" of that
advantage-taking has said "enough is enough".
Well, that "victim" could actually block Netflix and see how well their
paying customers like it.
nobody else here is saying that companies are evil, but some of us
are saying that the actions of many of the monopolist last-mile ISPs
is evil. please note the difference.
So end the monopoly. THAT's the root-cause of the issue, and is where
attention should be focused. You'll get no argument from me there.
A company gaining a monopoly is not evil in and of itself, it's only
when that monopoly starts to abuse it's position.
Either the monopoly needs to play nice willingly (even if it's not
maximizing it's revenue and minimizing it's investment), or it needs to
be regulated to force it to play nice, or the monopoly needs to be
broken.
But, while breaking the monopoly is the best thing, what should be done
while the monopoly continues to exist?
The idea that a website should have to pay every ISP in the world to
carry their content is not the Internet, it's some other structure,
and I don't believe that it's manageable. The sheer logistics of
trying to bill every website and pay every ISP in the world is not
managable.
If you're generating enough traffic that other sites notice and care
about you, it's not the worst thing in the world to be prepared to
revenue-share with the other people making your business-model
possible.
goodby Internet, the whole purpose of the Internet is to provide
services to people elsewhere, if you have to share your revenue with
everyone else, the administrative overhead will kill the business.
gain, you paint this as if this Netflix traffic is unwanted by
Verizon. If that's the case, they shouldn't care that Netflix
performance is poor on their network, because they are deliberately
making it so, and should tell the customers to get a different ISP if
they want good Netflix performance.
I'll bet that if they made that statement, they would loose a lot of
customers pretty quickly.
Well, that's the reason for the argument for focusing on competition.
Let net-neutral companies compete against net-non-neutral and see who
is more profitable, who has more customers, who has better
performance, cheaper prices, etc., etc., and let consumers decide for
themselves?
Sure, but first you have to allow the new net-neutral companies to
exist. The regulations currently prohibit that in many areas.
You can't both claim that regulations are evil and then claim that the
failure of there to be NN competitors which are prohibited by
regulations shows that it's not desired.
Because there are reasoned arguments for all of the various models,
but only in an actual competitive market-place can people decide for
themselves which model works best for THEM.
This only works if competitors are free to enter the market. The
history of community networks and how the existing big ISPs have
strangled them and are currently fighting against well-funded things
like Google Fiber show that this is not the case.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
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/
