Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think the issue 6Advocate refers to is the fear that in the
> developing world (where bandwidths are supposedly smaller and/or more
> expensive), one person who is downloading the entire season of Game of
> Thrones in Full HD could hog the
> entire bandwidth allocated to his village, and because of net
> neutrality, the ISP will not be able to throttle down that connection
> to make room for other people’s connections.
My opinion is that this is due to lack of end-user controlled QoS.
(end-user == the people who pay the ISP).
If the *other* people in the village were able to make bandwidth reservations,
then the ISP would have to take some bandwidth away from the downlowder to
satisfy things. To do otherwise would be not-neutral.
> I think this is a non-issue because:
> (a) upstream bandwidth from the ISP to the Internet is usually not the
> big issue, even in the developing world.
I think you mean, downstream bandwidth from the Internet to the ISP.
I think you used the term "upstream" to mean, the link "up" from the
end-user, vs the link from the ISP to the villager.
Bandwidth from the Internet to the ISP has regularly been a problem in every
ISP I've worked for.
> (b) net neutrality does not necessarily mean packet-level FCFS on every
> router. Some QoS scheme imposing fairness between customers or between
> devices does not violate net neutrality.
Agreed.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
pgpFhdNMhmZ_r.pgp
Description: PGP signature