nanog mailing list archives
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
From: Lyle Giese <lyle () lcrcomputer net>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:22:46 -0600
It leaves more data available to use within your data plan, but may reduce bandwidth available to you to actually use. In other words, you may find your billed usage unusable due to lack of usable bandwidth.
'Oh it's free, I will set my phone to stream all Monty Python movies continuously.'
But I think this answer is more in line with the intent of your question, why would someone want to try to startup a new service that doesn't fit within the guidelines of these 'free' services.
Lyle Giese LCR Computer Services, Inc. On 11/20/2015 12:30 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
​Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications​. What am I missing? On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net> wrote:It's not. And that's the point. This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net Neutrality] Because there are fewer operators there will be less competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has no incentive to support the application well. [Note, we just reduced the freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it slows growth. Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per application bandwidth caps) is desirable.
Current thread:
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?, (continued)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Chris Adams (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 20)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Keith Medcalf (Nov 28)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 20)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Steve Mikulasik (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? joel jaeggli (Nov 21)
- Message not available
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Blake Hudson (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Clay Curtis (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Joly MacFie (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Lyle Giese (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? William Herrin (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Christopher Morrow (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Mark Andrews (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Baldur Norddahl (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Mark Andrews (Nov 23)