Net neutrality proposal
tonysu at su-networking.com
Wed May 14 20:45:00 PDT 2014
The way you quoted (or used others' quotes) is misleading. Look up the
original quotes or be sure you're quoting your sources correctly.
- "Netflix comprises roughly 70% of all internet traffic according to
No, that wasn't what was said and on the face of it is ridiculous that
Netflix uses that much traffic all the time. The actual statement is that
only in exceptional peak periods, eg when a Game of Thrones first episode
of the season is airing, <then> the peak usage pushes that high in places
like No America. It's not throughout the Internet, and it happens only at
exceptional times, and then for a relatively short period of time (the time
to broadcast that single program).
You might also notice that Comcast is primarily a "last mile" ISP and that
is its main purpose... It just doesn't want people to be paying "ordinary
Internet access" to benefit a content competitor (Netflix) when it thinks
it should make more money by forcing its customers to be HBO
subscribers(for same or similar content).
To a lesser degree Comcast might also be an "intermediate" network
provider, ie some connections might find a faster, less latent connection
to Netflix servers through Comcast instead of going all the way through the
normal backbone providers. AFAIK Comcast hasn't released statistics that
describe this "unfair" load but it would be critical to evaluating whether
Comcast has a case or not.
Netflix doesn't pay the extra amount you claim to think it should but that
is because it is a Content Creator (It originates the broadcast). You seem
to believe it should also pay some kind of tax because its content is so
utilized by Consumers. Is that really right? Maybe the ISPs like Comcast
should be charging their customers more instead? But then, Comcast would be
the "bad Guy" instead of Netflix in the eyes of the Consumer...
The problem with the potential end of Net Neutrality is that it establishes
a clear precedent for throttling, blocking, filtering and censoring the
Internet. If you believe in a purely chaotic inviolate Internet Free
Speech, you <cannot> support even the slightest change to current Net
Neutrality. You would be providing justification for the Great Firewall of
China, governments shutting down the Internet and censoring for political
purposes. And,, you would make it difficult for anyone to set up any kind
of website with great potential, as soon as it gains the notice of someone
like Comcast, the site would be throttled or pay a toll. Maybe Comcast
might just block your website because it doesn't like the colors on your
website. Regardless, it would be justifiable. Even mail lists like this
could be made to pay a toll (well, if we generated enough traffic). Would
you want to see the end of Google and Yahoo Groups? They'd be next on the
block because of their popularity. Maybe even certain search engines. Could
Google be forced to charge for search? Could practically everything on the
Internet be forced to be no longer free?
So, no. No to changes in Net Neutrality or you will no longer recognize the
Internet you see today.
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Randall Shimizu <
randall.t.shimizu at gmail.com> wrote:
> The issue of bandwidth internet bandwidth utilization can be resolved by
> the use of content delivery servers. It is cheaper for Google to handle
> this issue since they own so much dark fiber.
> Netflix comprises roughly 70% of all internet traffic according Business
> Insider. Since video streaming is bandwidth sensitive Netflix is forced to
> take steps to alleviate latency. This is why I propose allowing companies
> to pay for additional bandwidth.
> Now one can argue that the Comcast agreement is a violation of net
> neutrality. But since Netflix consumes so much bandwidth they are forced to
> take steps to increase it. The issue is that Netflix is paying for
> interconnection as opposed transit as they rightly point out.
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:29 PM, DJA <dallen at codermotor.com> wrote:
> > On 05/11/2014 11:20 PM, DJA wrote:
> >> On 05/11/2014 10:15 PM, Randall Shimizu wrote:
> >>> Sorry I meant most of us are opposed to ending neutrality.
> >> Exactly.
> > Oops. Okay, you managed to confuse me. But maybe you got a discussion
> > started. This place is boring lately anyway. ;)
> > --
> > KPLUG-List at kernel-panic.org
> > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
> KPLUG-List at kernel-panic.org
More information about the KPLUG-List