Net neutrality proposal

Andrew Lentvorski bsder at allcaps.org
Thu May 15 00:04:28 PDT 2014


On 5/12/14, 12:37 AM, Randall Shimizu wrote:
> 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.
> http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.html

And this is the problem.  Net neutrality isn't really the issue.

The issue is that *I* already paid Comcast/Time Warner/AT&T etc. to
deliver my traffic.  The fact that my traffic usage doesn't match their
predictions is *their problem*--not mine, not Netflix, not Google's, etc..


The issue is that Comcast et al. want a second bite at the apple
*beyond* my having already paid them or they'll degrade *MY* connection.
 Um, excuse me?


Personally, I want these jerks classified as common carriers.  They've
been in the way for so long that I'm willing to let the local and state
governments see if they can do better.

It would be hard to do worse.

-a



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 538 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.kernel-panic.org/pipermail/kplug-list/attachments/20140515/65b270be/signature.pgp


More information about the KPLUG-List mailing list