And that example is where a case can be made for free market principles.
You got how many hundreds of thousands or millions of customers on a
carrier in a large market. Netflix probably figured it was in their best
interest to co-lo at the carrier's facilities so they don't lose
customers. And somehow that's extortion by the big bad ISP.
Perfect analogy. I live right off of I55. Nothing but corn and bean
fields for decades along the frontage roads. The farmers retired and
sold the land. Now there are some big warehouses. The roads are being
widened and repaired, paid by the developer. And why should they not pay
for it when the majority of the traffic will be theirs? And heavy
traffic at that. They weren't asked to pay for future I55 repairs
because of their traffic, just the access roads into their terminals.
So is it really too much to ask the edge provider pays for the
interconnection? IMO, no.
On 9/28/2017 7:10 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
A few years ago Netflix colo'd their CDN servers in a Comcast data
center to resolve an overloaded peering issue. Performance improved
for Netflix users served by that Comcast data center, usage on the
peering connection went back to normal. Netflix pays a monthly fee
for Colo just as anybody else would. Most observers in the media
noted that performance improved after Netflix started paying Comcast
and called it blackmail or extortion. Bad ISP! Stop charging Netflix
for Colo! We need Neutrality!
So yeah, I agree with you.
------ Original Message ------
From: "George Skorup" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: 9/28/2017 1:25:29 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Wanna throw up in your mouth?
I thought half or most of the issue was the "edge providers"?
Consumer wants edge providers' content.
Edge provider makes money from the consumer. Advertising. The content
itself. Etc.
Edge provider doesn't want to pay carrier for transit.
Both sides bitch. Peering is overloaded.
Gov't steps in to "fix" it.
Data caps and speed tiers weren't dissolved with NN. So what does it
do for the consumer? Or for that matter, the carrier? Who does it
"protect" other than the edge provider? Seems it's only protecting
their profits.
On 9/27/2017 11:40 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
That's pretty much how I've always seen it... NN always seemed to me
more of a solution to a problem that people were afraid might be
there someday, which the market would more than likely take care of
by itself if it actually does happen, than a solution to an actual
real problem.
On Sep 27, 2017 11:26 PM, "Jason McKemie"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I'd think the big guys getting greedy (and being allowed to do
as they wish with their networks) would only help the smaller
providers. It's certainly possible that I'm missing something
though.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2017, George Skorup
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think Steve is saying, what was broken 4 years ago that
needed NN to come fix it?
On 9/27/2017 10:08 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
How so?
It depends on which session. Sometimes we at least had
lube, or there
was the threat of getting fucked, but we just hadn't
been moved into
the same cell block of our admirer yet. Sometimes we
just got "raw
dogged".
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Steve Jones
<[email protected]> wrote:
Were we fucked 4 years ago?
On Sep 27, 2017 9:30 PM, "Josh Reynolds"
<[email protected]> wrote:
There's some points that are obviously wrong,
and some that are not.
Also, as consumers, if net neutrality is
repealed we are fucked.
On Sep 27, 2017 8:27 PM, "Steve Jones"
<[email protected]> wrote:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/27/16374136/ajit-pai-fcc-net-neutrality-isp
<https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/27/16374136/ajit-pai-fcc-net-neutrality-isp>
I pretty much had to quit reading when this
idiot sated what the FCCs job
is
