The line wasn’t crossed: Netflix is also free to pay the carrier/access provider to put their servers inside that network.

The line wasn’t crossed: Netflix is also free to pay the carrier/access provider to put their servers inside that network.

So Akamai places their caching servers at the carrier’s premises.

Akamai probably pays the carrier for that floor space and electricity.

I pay Akamai to get my content faster to the consumers – and all is well with the world.

Only thing that happened here, is that the line was crossed. I don’t think there’s an easy or natural place to put a line in the sand when it comes to net neutrality.

Akamai probably pays the carrier for that floor space and electricity.

I pay Akamai to get my content faster to the consumers – and all is well with the world.

Only thing that happened here, is that the line was crossed. I don’t think there’s an easy or natural place to put a line in the sand when it comes to net neutrality.

There is no line where you can optimize or traffic shape based on usage on your own network. You can even block traffic based on abuse.

The line is drawn at things like getting payed by content providers to give preference of their traffic over traffic of other content providers. Or forcing content providers to pay to give higher preference to their content because you traffic shape.

Disagreements are good for the sole 🙂

If I get it right, carriers are not allowed to pick and choose while content providers can.

So if I am a carrier, can I at least try to understand from the bits flowing over my network which belong to web pages and which belong to voice and video to treat them better to improve the quality of experience – irregardless of if it is my own content or some third party contect – or am I not allowed that as well due to “net neutrality”?

Can I cache stuff that goes over my pipes if there’s high demand for it (like the posts on this hugely successful blog for example – or the latest Harlem Shake on YouTube for that matter) – or is that considered a no no?

Where is the line drawn in what I can do to optimize content for my network?

Disagreements are good for the sole 🙂

If I get it right, carriers are not allowed to pick and choose while content providers can.

So if I am a carrier, can I at least try to understand from the bits flowing over my network which belong to web pages and which belong to voice and video to treat them better to improve the quality of experience – irregardless of if it is my own content or some third party contect – or am I not allowed that as well due to “net neutrality”?

Can I cache stuff that goes over my pipes if there’s high demand for it (like the posts on this hugely successful blog for example – or the latest Harlem Shake on YouTube for that matter) – or is that considered a no no?

Where is the line drawn in what I can do to optimize content for my network?

The CDN argument is a strawman. It does not change the fundamental way that Internet traffic is treated by ISPs – it just alters the virtual topology of the Internet (which is convoluted anyway) to the content company’s advantage. It’s in the same category as if you lived on a small Pacific Island connected via satellite, and choose to host your server in San Francisco instead. Or, indeed, picked a fast/direct fibre routing.

Yes, if you pay money you get “better” Internet delivery, but that’s also true of paying money for better servers, or better web designers. It doesn’t alter HTTP or IP behaviour, and isn’t contrary to the way the public Internet usually functions. In particular, to the user access part of the Internet (the most important for NN), it makes no difference whatsoever.

The Netflix thing *is* more interesting, but it depends how those services end up getting marketed to consumers. If the movies are sold as part of an IPTV bundle, delivered to a settop box, then they are not (in my view) part of the “public Internet” any more.

It’s important to make a clear distinction between INTERnet neutrality vs. more general broadband net neutrality. Internet access is only one service delivered via broadband – along with IPTV, carrier VoIP & maybe smart metering, corporate IP-VPNs etc. Those don’t need to be neutral, but the bit that gets marketed as “public Internet access” does.

Except in Finland, no telco is forced to offer Internet Access to its customers. But if it *does*, it needs to be Real Internet, not some horrible form of Processed Internet-flavoured Substitute

Dean

The CDN argument is a strawman. It does not change the fundamental way that Internet traffic is treated by ISPs – it just alters the virtual topology of the Internet (which is convoluted anyway) to the content company’s advantage. It’s in the same category as if you lived on a small Pacific Island connected via satellite, and choose to host your server in San Francisco instead. Or, indeed, picked a fast/direct fibre routing.

Yes, if you pay money you get “better” Internet delivery, but that’s also true of paying money for better servers, or better web designers. It doesn’t alter HTTP or IP behaviour, and isn’t contrary to the way the public Internet usually functions. In particular, to the user access part of the Internet (the most important for NN), it makes no difference whatsoever.

The Netflix thing *is* more interesting, but it depends how those services end up getting marketed to consumers. If the movies are sold as part of an IPTV bundle, delivered to a settop box, then they are not (in my view) part of the “public Internet” any more.

It’s important to make a clear distinction between INTERnet neutrality vs. more general broadband net neutrality. Internet access is only one service delivered via broadband – along with IPTV, carrier VoIP & maybe smart metering, corporate IP-VPNs etc. Those don’t need to be neutral, but the bit that gets marketed as “public Internet access” does.

Except in Finland, no telco is forced to offer Internet Access to its customers. But if it *does*, it needs to be Real Internet, not some horrible form of Processed Internet-flavoured Substitute

Dean

Why is Google paying Orange ? Because mobile is booming, telecom operators can’t keep up with demand right now (I’m sure it will be solved, but it will take some time and/or deployment of better technologies at the edge: Multipath-TCP anyone ?).