Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com>]

On Thu 2015-Dec-10 13:32:25 -0600, Chris Adams <cma () cmadams net> wrote:

> Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com> said:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
> > <william.r.kenny () gmail com> wrote:
> > > is that still net neutrality?
> >
> > who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
>
> Any why the desire for extra regulation for Internet services?
>
> Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do things like this all the
> time, especially when they are busy (congested).  I had a package ship
> Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first
> move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay
> extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special
> arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today.  I should get it tomorrow.
>
> I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers
> have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority.  How
> is this different from Internet traffic?

Your package being delayed was based on your service level (what you paid 
for the service) not the contents of your package or the sender's identity.

If we're going to get into the details of the sender's relationship to the 
shipping company (i.e. "(and the shipper doesn't have special 
arrangements)"), note that situation is more analogous to traffic where 
both the sender and receiver are getting transit from the same provider.  
If there were two shipping companies (sender uses shipping company A; 
receiver uses shipping company B, and A & B hand off to each other), the 
situation would be closer to the discussion.

> --
> Chris Adams <cma () cmadams net>

--
Hugo

hugo () slabnet com: email, xmpp/jabber
PGP fingerprint (B178313E):
CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E

(also on Signal)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature