6 ms·
Let’s break it down: BOB pays ALICE for a connection at fixed uplink/downlink parameters to the public collective of interconnected autonomous networks commonl
by deno 8y ago
Let’s break it down:
BOB pays ALICE for a connection at fixed uplink/downlink parameters to the public collective of interconnected autonomous networks commonly referred to as INTERNET.
BOB uses the service as advertised to connect to CAROL’s autonomous network.
ALICE fails to adequately peer with CAROL’s autonomous network and calls it a feature.
BOB can’t switch ISPs because ALICE has monopoly on the service where he lives.
ALICE tries to muddy the waters with nonsensical milk lorry analogies that have nothing to do with fiber optic cables to maintain its monopoly and further leverage it to run protection racket on CAROL.
Sounds about right?
When BOB is paying ALICE for the service, he is implicitly paying for whatever “highway” connects his house and CAROL’s milk depots. Everything between the two points is ALICE’s responsibility. If ALICE doesn’t like that BOB mostly orders his milk from CAROL’s then she shouldn’t offer the service as supporting fixed amount of lorries per hour.
- rjvbk 8y ago>ALICE fails to adequately peer with CAROL’s autonomous network and calls it a feature. It also works the other way around: CAROL does not want to pay ALICE to have premium access. Also, laughable that you call me a shill. Seems like the most used argument when you don't agree with someone. I'm not even American. So your "BOB can't switch ISPs" does not even apply here.
- deno 8y ago> It also works the other way around: CAROL does not want to pay ALICE to have premium access. How does this logically follow? CAROL advertises fixed downlink/uplink connection to any autonomous network. How is it “premium access” to deliver on what you are actually advertising? It’s like selling SSD drives and then saying oh yeah but if you store video files in this particular video codec they will play at only 15 fps unless the codec vendor pays us extra for a firmware update. > So your "BOB can't switch ISPs" does not even apply here. It applies to the particular Netflix/neutrality debate.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- reitanqild 8y ago> also works the other way around: CAROL does not want to pay ALICE to have premium access. As others have mentioned there is no extra "premium" access needed. Netflix pays for their whole upstream, probably a bit extra for redundant uplinks etc. Customers pay for the entire downstream. Everyone in between just have to accept the bits and forward them within reasonable time (Netflix has some caching in the client so it shouldn't be to hard unless someone has oversold their capacity.) > Also, laughable that you call me a shill. I looked at your recent comment history and I agree. That said you really seem to defend an undefendable practice to the point where I understand where people get that idea from. So I'd rather guess you enjoy annoying people on the internet to see them get mad.
- matz1 8y agoThe way I see it is net neutrality is very unfair to the isp. It creates unnecessary burden to the isp. Of course Isp will hate it and will fight for it as much as their can.
- deno 8y agoThose ISPs can only fight this “burden” by taking advantage of their unfair monopoly. If there was an actual free market competition there would be no need for net neutrality in the first place. BOB could just switch to using DAVE’s ISP service, who would be happy to connect him with CAROL’s AN without any throttling.
- matz1 8y agoIts not the ISP fault if they are the monopoly.
- deno 8y agoWouldn’t you agree those ISPs are very well compensated for this “burden” by not having to compete?
- IOT_Apprentice 8y ago
- meestaahjoshee 8y agoAjit is that you?