Net neutrality a bad, bad idea, says ISP CEO

jes said:
Net neutrality a bad, bad idea: ISP CEO

A well-known ISP CEO says that net neutrality hurts network investment – adding that content providers paying ISPs to prioritize their traffic makes more sense
Click to expand...

What Bull****.

Completely anti competitive.

How are the smaller guys sup[posed to compete then?

**** him. **** Cybersmart.

I now feel sorry for those Crystal Web users as they now are supporting this idiot.

Sorry Crystal Web. I won't support this guy. I'll be keeping my Business with Web Africa.
 
How about netflix turning around had saying "only reason you have people buying your profitable 20Mb line is for my HD movies - pay up ISPs for piggybacking off our infrastructure" - pretty sure he'd change his tune very quickly.
 
Ugh, no.

Without Net Neutrality of some kind it turns into this exponential scaling of contracts between ISPs and content providers just to get the end user decent service. 5 content companies and 5 ISPs? 25 agreements need to be reached across all of them for "optimal" service. Start doing that globally with 100s of companies and 100s of ISPs and it just makes the whole foundation of the Internet unworkable and leaves you in a situation where you have to choose ISP based on who they have premier contracts with. Want decent DStv streaming? Have to go with MWEB.

I'm sure it's a GREAT deal though for ISPs who get to "leverage their customer base" (aka use them as hostages) to milk additional money out of random content providers.

And when it comes time for a new startup to come along and make a new product, the winner won't be decided as much by who has the best service, but rather who is able to quickly strike deals with the 100s of ISPs who exist. Lets bring the magical world of TV show licensing, where one chooses one media streaming provider by the power of their lawyers to strike contract deals, to the rest of the internet!
 
Last edited:
ISP CEO promotes idea that'll increase his profits at the expense of well, eveything else.

What a complete surprise ..
 
Laurie Fialkov said:
Fialkov explained that it makes no commercial sense for ISPs to invest in network infrastructure, and then have that additional capacity saturated by a content provider like Netflix.
Click to expand...

But. Google can provide free peering to Netflix? (Also a nice Blog post on why Google did it).

Some snippets ...
Jeffrey Burgan said:
Bringing fiber all the way to your home is only one piece of the puzzle. We also partner with content providers (like YouTube, Netflix, and Akamai) to make the rest of your video’s journey shorter and faster. (This doesn't involve any deals to prioritize their video ‘packets’ over others or otherwise discriminate among Internet traffic — we don't do that.)
Click to expand...

Jeffrey Burgan said:
We give companies like Netflix and Akamai free access to space and power in our facilities and they provide their own content servers. We don’t make money from peering or colocation; since people usually only stream one video at a time, video traffic doesn’t bog down or change the way we manage our network in any meaningful way — so why not help enable it?
Click to expand...

Jeffrey Burgan said:
But we also don’t charge because it’s really a win-win-win situation. It’s good for content providers because they can deliver really high-quality streaming video to their customers. For example, because Netflix colocated their servers along our network, their customers can access full 1080p HD and, for those who own a 4K TV, Netflix in Ultra HD 4K. It’s good for us because it saves us money (it’s easier to transport video traffic from a local server than it is to transport it thousands of miles). But most importantly, we do this because it gives Fiber users the fastest, most direct route to their content. That way, you can access your favorite shows faster. All-in-all, these arrangements help you experience the best access to content on the Internet — which is the whole point of getting Fiber to begin with!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Chevron posted this in another thread. Explains it pretty well.
(Hope you don't mind me reposting it here Chev....)

[video=youtube_share;NAxMyTwmu_M]http://youtu.be/NAxMyTwmu_M[/video]
 
Compton_effect said:
A good analogy would be SANRAL blocking two of the lanes on the N1 for use by e-tag users only.
No Net neutrality, no Internet, no innovation.
Click to expand...

I think a closer analogy would be SANRAL limiting people driving VWs to only one lane because they are too popular. They would then create express lanes for them if VW forked over some extra cash even though VW drivers pay the same amount of Tax and Tolls as everyone else.
 
DragonMolester said:
I think a closer analogy would be SANRAL limiting people driving VWs to only one lane because they are too popular. They would then create express lanes for them if VW forked over some extra cash even though VW drivers pay the same amount of Tax and Tolls as everyone else.
Click to expand...

Brilliant.
 
WTF!?!?!?
Reading this just made me realize why we're in such a dire situation regarding internet acces... and these are supposed to be the "good guys" compared to Telkom.
It almost feels weird to hear something as stupid as this when it's not coming from an ANC member.

"content providers paying ISPs to prioritize their traffic makes more sense" :twisted:
Jou ma se p*** maak sense man.
 
Last edited:
DragonMolester said:
I think a closer analogy would be SANRAL limiting people driving VWs to only one lane because they are too popular. They would then create express lanes for them if VW forked over some extra cash even though VW drivers pay the same amount of Tax and Tolls as everyone else.
Click to expand...

And we'd all be told that it's a good thing because it creates more "choice" in the market. Now you aren't just limiting your car choice based on things like fuel efficiency, price and design, the artificial restriction of limited lanes creates new considerations for someone buying the car.
 
RaptorSA said:
WTF!?!?!?
Reading this just made me realize why we're in such a dire situation regarding internet acces... and these are supposed to be the "good guys" compared to Telkom.
It almost feels weird to hear something as stupid as this when it's not coming from an ANC member.

"content providers paying ISPs to prioritize their traffic makes more sense" :twisted:
Jou ma se p*** maak sense man.
Click to expand...

he's a good CEO becasue he's looking out for companies bottom line.
Just because they are all (mostly) less evil than Telkom we make them into heroes.
I love Afrihost for what i get, but I also don't believe any of those mails where they make you think they are doing this for the consumer...if its doesn't make financial sense then they would lower prices. Its just that maybe they think more like us (lower price -> more subscribers -> more profit)
 
:confused: :wtf: :mad: :sick:

Fialkov explained that it makes no commercial sense for ISPs to invest in network infrastructure, and then have that additional capacity saturated by a content provider like Netflix.
Click to expand...
It does if you like having customers.

“I would 100% support a system where content providers pay ISPs
Click to expand...
Well thats rich coming from an ISP owner.

Netflix, therefore, would benefit and profit from the ISP’s investment, but there is no commercial benefit to the ISP.
Click to expand...
How exactly is having the ability to deliver what customers want (netflix) of "no commercial benefit to the ISP"?
 
Compton_effect said:
You know - some executives and politicians are starting to make comments that almost makes it worth having them beaten up.
Picture said CEO lying huddled next to his smashed-up car with a sign saying - 'No its not'
Click to expand...

^
THIS :D

:twisted::twisted::twisted:
 
Prioritisation of traffic is a lazy businessman's solution to the problem of inadequate network capacity and bad planning. And it makes me sick, especially in a country like ours where broadband is so far below international standards. And those low standards will not improve with prioritisation, because the root cause is poor last mile connection, exchange congestion and expensive IPC. None of which can be fixed by this.

It's just a shortcut way to increase profits at the expense of the average user.

Until we have affordable fibre that is accessible as a basic standard, with speeds that make things like streaming (proper high quality content with no buffering) the norm rather than the exception, a topic like prioritisation shouldn't even come up in conversation.
 
The only reason these Mickey-Mouse CEO's in SA are even dreaming about this, is because it's currently a hot topic of conversation & debate in the US. For those that might not know, just listen to or watch the TWIT network's podcasts or vids.

If implemented in the US our unoriginal CEO's will suddenly be jumping on this bandwagon.
 
The reserved lane argument is a great analogy. I also think it's unfair for ISPs to double charge for providing internet access, Google or whoever pays their way onto the internet, they have service providers, infrastructure, etc. that feeds into the internet. They're already paying handsomely for this, whether it's their own infrastructure or an ISPs.

I pay my ISP for a xxMb/s line to access the internet, where I go and what I do with that access should be between me and my destination (unless it's illegal and even that's just a maybe) The ISP should just be a conduit to getting me there as fast as it possibly can.

An argument can maybe be made for an ISP saying "Well, we're partnering with DSTV to get direct access to their network, it's faster but it's a mutual arrangement and it's a bonus on top of our general purpose line." Maybe then you say, well, that's good. It's mutual, until what happens is that everyone's forced into making "special fast-lanes" with big ISPs and the general purpose line is something akin to a dirt road where any moderately high bandwidth service is completely useless.

Not to mention smaller ISPs who can't offer that are completely clomped.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X