On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:25 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>> On 4/27/2014 3:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand
>>> through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
> On 4/27/2014 3:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand
>> through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for
>> popular stuff, encrypted midnight downloads to your DVR,
On 4/27/2014 3:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like
Comcast for access to their cable subscribers.
In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand
through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for
popula
On Apr 28, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Barry Shein wrote:
>> I think the problem is simply a lack of competition and the rise of,
>> in effect, vertical trusts. That is, content providers also
>> controlling last-mile services.
>>
>> What exists is rife with conflict of interest
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Kristopher Doyen <
kristopher.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When last mile ISPs no longer have pressure or over-sight to maintain a
> business model that puts user's needs first, because a happy user is a
> returning user, you now have an entity who will do anything fo
Barry Shein wrote:
I think the problem is simply a lack of competition and the rise of,
in effect, vertical trusts. That is, content providers also
controlling last-mile services.
What exists is rife with conflict of interest and unfair market
power. Particularly in that wire-plants are generall
I think the problem is simply a lack of competition and the rise of,
in effect, vertical trusts. That is, content providers also
controlling last-mile services.
What exists is rife with conflict of interest and unfair market
power. Particularly in that wire-plants are generally protected
monopoli
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:08:55 -0700, TGLASSEY said:
> 1) The pipe issue is that of the last mile providers and not
> Netflix. The issue is the failure of the IETF to put controls in place
> which address this.
It's totally unclear to me that the IETF is the one who failed to put
controls in
On 4/27/2014 9:57 AM, Rick Astley wrote:
I wish you would expand on that to help me understand where you are coming
from but what I pay my ISP for is simply a pipe, I don't know how it would
make sense logically to assume that every entity I communicate with on the
Internet must be able to conne
On Apr 28, 2014 7:37 AM, "Justin M. Streiner"
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote:
>
>>> Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're
deliberately
>>
>> billing two customers for the same byte
>>
>> Where your statement is short sighted I already explained pa
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote:
Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're
deliberately
billing two customers for the same byte
Where your statement is short sighted I already explained partly in saying
its too difficult to decide who gets a free ride and wh
ff the cat back in the bag because at
that point this type of preferential treatment would already be an
established/common practice.
--
Hugo
Network Specialist
Phone: 604.606.4448
Email: hslabb...@stargate.ca
Stargate Connections Inc.
http://www.stargate.ca
____________
Fr
>Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're
>deliberately
billing two customers for the same byte
I think this statement is a little short sighted if not a bit naive. What
both parties are sold is a pipe that carries data. A subscriber has one,
Netflix has one. They are
I agree with all this, even the parts that disagree with me.
-b
On April 27, 2014 at 20:30 jo...@iecc.com (John Levine) wrote:
> >That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like
> >Comcast for access to their cable subscribers.
>
> Well, no. According to Time-Warner's
:)
Phil
-Original Message-
From: "John Levine"
Sent: 4/27/2014 4:33 PM
To: "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
>That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like
>Comcast for access to their cable subscr
>That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like
>Comcast for access to their cable subscribers.
Well, no. According to Time-Warner's 2013 annual report, cable
companies paid T-W $4.89 billion for access to HBO and Cinemax. No
video provider pays for access to cable. The cruddy
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Rick Astley wrote:
[...]
> It would be sort of the same concept of my grandmother
> calling my cell phone yet we both need to pay for our individual phone
> lines to at least reach the carrier tasked with connecting our call. Even
> if my grandmother calls a busi
On April 27, 2014 at 10:04 n...@pelagiris.org (Nick B) wrote:
> The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double
> dipping.
I'd characterize it as an attempt to charge content providers for
access to last mile customers, where those are two different
companies.
Which isn't
* William Herrin
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astley wrote:
>> #3 On paid peering:
>> I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should
>> be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious
>> problems once you outlaw paid peering and t
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astley wrote:
> #3 On paid peering:
> I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should
> be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious
> problems once you outlaw paid peering and then look at the potentia
I wish you would expand on that to help me understand where you are coming
from but what I pay my ISP for is simply a pipe, I don't know how it would
make sense logically to assume that every entity I communicate with on the
Internet must be able to connect for free because I am covering the tab as
The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double
dipping.
Nick
On Apr 27, 2014 2:05 AM, "Rick Astley" wrote:
> Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know the
> specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile tinkering
> of traffic
Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know the
specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile tinkering
of traffic (#1). What this means to me is ISP's can't block access to a
specific website like alibaba and demand ransom from subscribers to access
23 matches
Mail list logo
