Net neutrality proposal

Randall Shimizu randall.t.shimizu at
Thu May 15 03:15:45 PDT 2014

I am not proposing a end to net neutrality or a tax.  I am simply proposing
a way for companies to obtain additional bandwidth and speed should they
choose do so. Let me reemphasize this would take away from others. This
would be the provisioning additional hardware if needed.

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Tony Su <tonysu at> wrote:

> Randy,
> 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
> Business Insider"
> 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.
> IMO,
> Tony
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Randall Shimizu <
> randall.t.shimizu at> 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> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > KPLUG-List at
> >
> >
> --
> KPLUG-List at

More information about the KPLUG-List mailing list