[AusNOG] [Internet Australia - members] Net neutrality

[ausftth at mail.com]

Paul,

I'm sorry, but I still do not get what CDNs have to do with "consolidation of transit by large content providers". Please explain it to me like I'm five.

I also do not get why you think CDNs are a problem. Anybody can purchase service from third party CDNs and if you have enough traffic ISPs may even accept your own cache appliance. There is no great barrier of entry. Furthermore CDNs are just a convenience and/or sometimes a cost saving. You get the same benefit when buying transit directly from the ISP, minus some degree of geographical proximity. Often this is just a single router hop, nothing much to be exited about.

CDN traffic does not get any special preferential treatment either on the ISP network. It's treated the same as any other traffic source.

Your second problem is also a false dichotomy. CDNs do not decrease the amount of transit capacity, it frees up transit capacity for other uses.

Jared

-----Original message-----
Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2015 at 12:29:45
From: "Paul Wilkins" <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
To: "AusNOG Mailing List" <ausnog at ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [Internet Australia - members] Net neutrality
Jared,
The article mentions NBN Chairman Ziggy Switkowski wanting to contribute to
discussions around CDNs of content providers deployed into ISPs, notably
for Google and Netflix.

To the naive eye, they're both providing ISPs "free" bandwidth. There's no
cost forwarded to the end user. But the consequences of this, for other
content providers, is that Google and Netflix, can provide a better user
experience.

Now that's a problem for 2 classes of providers.
1 - those competing in the content sphere - for Google, other search
providers, for Netflix, other VoD providers. If you're an innovator in the
search engine or VoD space, existing CDNs significantly up the barriers to
entry.

2 - those providing a different service, so they're not direct competitors,
but where their traffic is of higher value to the user, (and consequently
the service provider would be willing to pay for a better level of
service), but under net neutrality rules, should receive the same
treatment. If users can get all the Netflix they need through CDNs, there
won't be the scale of transit capacity as if there were no CDNs, so higher
value content, such as voice and video, wouldn't get resourcing to the same
scale.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins







On 24 November 2015 at 22:14, <ausftth at mail.com> wrote:

> Paul,
>
> Could you please explain what you mean with the below text. Preferrably
> with some real world examples.
>
> > In my opinion, what's being discussed in the political sphere, is where
> > consolidation of transit by large content providers, results in their
> > content being treated preferentially.
>
> Jared
>
_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog