NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Comments on NNSquad Purpose
It is important to distinguish "peering" (interconnection between ISPs)We were talking about akami and similar 'peering' services. Peer-to-Peer (p2p) and 'peering' are distinct terms.
from "peer to peer" (which is actually a misnomer, because it has come
to be used as a term for applications which are used to push
bandwidth demand away from the entity that is benefiting from it,
and also to decentralize illegal activity and make it difficult to stop).
They seem to have a problem with Verizon's revised terms of service,Because for the other reasons listed, Net Neutrality does not end here. I've not heard anyone is saying it should be illegal to set a bandwidth or transfer cap, or to bill for actual byte-neutral usage. Its certainly not an argument we've asked the CRTC to regulate. In fact the opposite is true, we've made arguments to them that this should in fact be the way Internet is sold, and we've praised those companies like Bell Canada who have begun to price in this way. But ISPs have started placing caps/limits and are STILL interfering with traffic usage -- which is just wrong and potentially false advertising.
which describe explicit bandwidth and throughput caps. Why?
It's a way to shift it to the consumer and have them participate in the distribution of content. It's not an assault on the ISP, and that's not it's purpose. When New Media uses bittorrent, it is mostly to improve distribution speeds, allowing peers that are closer together to share the data between themselves instead of pulling it from a central server.BitTorrent is a way to shift bandwidth burdens from the distributor of content (who makes money on it) to the ISP (who loses money and suffers network disruptions when it is used). It is also, in most cases, used to distribute illegal activity so as to make it hard to stop, as mentioned above.
They are not unable to invest -- they are unable to make a return on theThere is no issue with delivering 50-60 gigs for a $40/mo service plan. If you want credibility in this area, then you'll have to make your costs public, and show the public a defensible financial argument. So far, there hasn't been one.
investment or even break even.
Want to pay $500 per month for a 1.5 Mbps broadband connection? If you insist upon unrestricted use of BitTorrent, that is what I and other ISPs will have to charge you to stay in the black, because that is theI don't need a full 1.5 mbps pipe 24/7. A 10mbit pipe with 100 gig/mo cap would work fine for me. There's no solid financial reason that this type of over-subscription cannot be profitable in the $50/mo price range and properly provisioned.
wholesale price of a T1 line in our area.
If I "easily" solved the problem by doing this, and then billed users forIf the argument is that because a minority of users want to use p2p for unauthorized copying, you need to charge me for a 1.5 mbps pipe; then you're simply incorrect and one of your competitors will figure this out and provide a properly provisioned service. No one is arguing that users are entitled to a full 1.5mbps pipe 24/7 ... thats quite correctly a leased line.
what they consumed, I would be out of business in a hurry. If you attempt
to lobby for laws or regulations which require me to sell my product below
cost, don't be surprised if you as a consumer suddenly have few or no
choices.
Surely this makes sense....