Re: net neutrality - explained in a humourous way

On 01 Jul 2014, at 3:28 PM, Hendrik Visage <[email protected]> wrote:
> The issue is more somethings like we have in South Africa: only Telkom
> provides ADSL service. there they have (for example) only Comcast that provides cable TV in
> specific areas/states. 
<snip>
> Now NetFlix is a competition to those cable TV networks, so then why
> can't they limit NetFlix on their cables if that's a competition? Why
> should they peer with NetFlix if that's a competition?

Because, as you rightly point out, they have a monopoly on the last mile, so:
1) if the provider sabotages Netflix's service, the customer can't vote with his/her feet;
2) consequently the provider can extort money out of Netflix.
 
> It's called a captive audience/clientele, yes, we freedom fighters
> hate that idea, but that is a different story.

It seems (from your remarks) that you don't believe this use of market power amounts to abuse, but many other people do (hence we have competition laws - something that dates back to Roman times).

> Now the "solution" would be similar to South Africa where Telkom
> provides last mile access to the ISPs (like
> Axxess/OpenWeb/AfriHost/Vodacom/MTN/IS/etc.) inside the exchanges,
> much like the carrier select offered in other countries, but for that
> you'll need to open up not a government/parastatal organization, but
> you'll actually  be telling a company (like
> IS/Vodacom/MTN/NeoTel/etc.) to share their networks with others...

This is another regulatory solution to the problem. How is forcing providers to wholesale their infrastructure to their competition more acceptable to you than enforcing network neutrality?

One approach limits the control required to be abusive, the other bans abuse...

I think the latter is less draconian.
_______________________________________________
IOZ mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.internet.org.za/mailman/listinfo/ioz