The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

[dougb at dougbarton.us (Doug Barton)]

On 04/27/2014 03:15 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Hugo Slabbert" <hslabbert at stargate.ca>
>
>> But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge
>> network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to
>> Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really
>> anything more nuanced here than:
>>
>> 1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their
>> network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with.
>> (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life).
>> 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market.
>> 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications
>> and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on.
>> 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with
>> the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy
>> their customers' usage.
>
> You may be new here, but I'm not, and I read it exactly the same way.
>
>> How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more
>> traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I
>> have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or
>> add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I
>> missing something?
>
> It is absolutely the problem of the eyeball carrier who gambled on a
> given oversubscription ratio and discovered that it's called gambling
> because sometimes, you lose.

+1

What I don't understand is why Netflix et al are not doing a PR campaign 
to explain this to the end users.

Doug