Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

[Lamar Owen <lowen () pari edu>]

On 04/27/2014 06:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hugo Slabbert" <hslabbert () stargate ca>
> > I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly
> > been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the
> > links.
> And the answer is: at whose instance (to use an old Bell term) is that
> traffic moving.
>
> The answer is "at the instance of the eyeball's customers".
>
> So there's no call for the eyeball to charge the provider for it.

Now, Jay, I don't often disagree with you, but today it occurred to me 
the business case here (I've had to put on my businessman's hat far too 
frequently lately, in dealing with trying to make a data center 
operation profitable, or at least break-even).  This should be taken 
more as a 'devil's advocate' post more than anything else, and if I 
missed someone else in the thread making the same point, my apologies to 
the Department of Redundancy Department.

Sure, the content provider is paying for their transit, and the eyeball 
customer is paying for their transit.  But the content provider is 
further charging the eyeball's customer for the content, and thus is 
making money off of the eyeball network's pipes.  Think like a 
businessman for a moment instead of like an operator.

Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as 
getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, by 
the way).  The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman 
in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of 
that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile 
network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be.  How many 
mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list?  Well, in this case 
it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer list.   The 
argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, disguising the 
real, profit-sharing, motive.