On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing $CABLECO to leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an operational disadvantage in access for that competing product.
I was with you right up til here.
The so-called “internet fast lane” is a euphemism for allowing $CABLECO to put competing video products into a newly developed slow-lane while limiting the existing path to their own products and those content providers that are able to and choose to pay these additional fees.
So, how do you explain, and justify -- if you do -- cablecos who use IPTV to deliver their mainline video, and supply VoIP telephone...
and use DOCSIS to put that traffic on separate pipes to the end terminal from their IP service, an advantage which providers who might compete with them don't have -- *even*, I think, if they are FCC mandated alternative IP providers who get aggregated access to the cablemodem, as do Earthlink and the local Internet Junction in my market, which can (at least in theory) still be provisioned as your cablemodem supplier for Bright House (Advance/Newhouse) customers.
I don’t explain it, don’t justify it, don’t support it.
Those are “fast lanes" for TV and Voice traffic, are they not?
Carving the pipe up into lanes to begin with is kind of questionable IMHO. I realize it’s tradition, but if you think about it, it was only necessary when things were TDM/FDM. Once everything is IP, dividing the IP up among different TDM/FDM is just a way to take one large fast lane and turn it into slow lanes (some slower than others, perhaps) where some traffic can be given preferential treatment.
They are (largely) anticompetitive, and unavailable to other providers.
Agreed… I thought that’s what I said above. Owen