[AusNOG] Fwd: [Internet Australia - members] Net neutrality

[James Hodgkinson]

But the two *are* related - caps and so forth have typically been about
balancing transit costs to the ISP vs availability to the customer. 

If the local caching/good peering helps the ISP to reduce
costs/contention on their edges (or traffic within their network,
interstate etc) that cannot be ignored.

James 


On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, at 07:22, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> In message
> <1448399048.635948.449152465.3E549172 at webmail.messagingengine.com>, 
> James Hodgkinson writes:
> > So the service getting the "advantage" designing their solution to
> > include local caching nodes should be ignored? 
> 
> Local caching != zero rating.  Stop conflating the two things.
> 
> Local caching produces a better service as the traffic does not
> need to contend with other traffic to reach the ISP.  This is
> equivalent to peering with a big fat pipe.  It's basically make a
> choice about what hardware to peer with and the relative cost of
> different technological solutions.  Yes, caching is peering with
> very large pipes.
> 
> "zero rating" is about not getting cut off from the customer because
> they did too much else in the month.  If you are not zero rated you
> will be cut off/rate limited when the customer does too much stuff.
> 
> > It's not like they got this advantage for free - there's a risk/cost to
> > them involved in deploying it - but only by their own choice, not by the
> > ISPs actions.
> > 
> > James
> > 
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, at 00:53, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > 
> > > In message
> > > <1448376141.546129.448792793.355D0567 at webmail.messagingengine.com>, 
> > > James Hodgkinson writes:
> > > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, at 22:15, ausftth at mail.com wrote:
> > > > > > [Internode zero rating Netflix] And they're doing something wrong? 
> > > > >    Yes. Playing favorites and steering customers towards Netflix, to th
> > e de
> > > > triment of Stan and others.
> > > > 
> > > > But *why* is it wrong? Do we know if Stan has offered content nodes and
> > > > been knocked back, or asked for money after having their traffic QoS'd?
> > > > It's not like they're marking people's quota double for the other
> > > > company's services.
> > > > 
> > > > Because Stan are a relatively new player in the marketplace, should that
> > > > mean Netflix can't leverage their capital to buy hardware and spread
> > > > their product? Another example: A few of the providers have been
> > > > providing free IPTV services for years, directly competing with cable TV
> > > > - no complaints there?
> > > > 
> > > > Why is this new situation, where they are not *negatively* impacting
> > > > other services (by QoS or other traffic handling methods) part of the
> > > > net neutrality debate? It's muddying the water from the *real* issues
> > > > that are being discussed.
> > > 
> > > If you are not zero rated then you are negatively impacted when
> > > others are.  You have to design your product to fit the cap whereas
> > > the other player doesn't.
> > > 
> > > If your customer has used up their allocation for the month then
> > > you can't sell them anything while your competition that is zero
> > > rated can.
> > > 
> > > So, yes, this is a net neutrality issue, just not a quite so obvious
> > > one.
> > > 
> > > > James
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > AusNOG mailing list
> > > > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > > > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> > > -- 
> > > Mark Andrews, ISC
> > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org