[AusNOG] [Internet Australia - members] Net neutrality

[Grahame Lynch]

Not my place to really intervene here but I have discussed this with Ziggy
at some length on multiple occasions so here is my two cents worth.

I think Ziggy is coming from the point of view of how to ** diversify **
the revenue streams of NBN and how to ** dilute ** the impact of its cost
on end customers.

So if Netflix was to pay NBN from the other side to, say, be zero rated in
terms of CVC that would be seen as a driver of affordability and uptake for
end NBN services. Right now the core CIR of an NBN access line is 150kbits.
Everything above that pretty much attracts a CVC requirement (yes I am
aware of the threshold). With CVC at $17.5 per meg and Netflix requiring
2Mbps or so do the math. NBN ARPUs are already climbing past $40 a month
and at that level, some people might not be too interested in NBN services
(effective RPs being over $60 or more in that context)

But I do not want to put words in his mouth. It is not NBN policy to do
that, I think he is merely pushing a debate along to see what people think.
NBN wants to make money but is very conscious of its social mandate to
increase broadband penetration - hence the interest in alternate sources of
revenue from the Netflixes of this world....

On 24 November 2015 at 19:40, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jared,
> Here is the 'explain it to a 5 year old' version:
>
> http://www.theopeninter.net/
>
> The adult version is that the existence of CDNs impose barriers to entry,
> both cost and technological, to new entrant competitors, and alters cost
> models for other services sharing the same bandwidth.
>
> My view is that it's actually very difficult to make a case that CDNs are
> anticompetitive to the degree where one would expect regulation. Ziggy
> Switkowski is carefully sitting on the fence, recognising this as a debate
> we need to have, while not advocating any particular outcome.
>
> Would legislation to ensure that CDNs are an open platform for carrying
> 3rd party traffic be worthwhile? I expect this issue will surface during
> the debate. Under current arrangements, if Google or Netflix own the
> platform, they're under no obligation to carry 3rd party traffic, or offer
> equivalent priority of traffic. The antitrust considerations are similar in
> some ways to the circumstances that required Microsoft to decouple IE from
> Windows back in '98.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 23:02, <ausftth at mail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20151124/875ceae1/attachment.html>