5 ms·

I appreciate that you bring these questions up but your overall point seems to be "this is complicated and you can't provide logically / morally perfect argumen

by and0 10y ago

I appreciate that you bring these questions up but your overall point seems to be "this is complicated and you can't provide logically / morally perfect arguments", which seems a little pointless. All legal matters are complicated, but we're a modern society full of a lot of bright people and "free market lol ISPs get to be highway robbers now" doesn't seem like the best we can do. I also disagree with the notion that inconveniencing some billionaires is less moral than hurting millions of consumers and setting a horrible precedent, so: regulate the shit out of them. If poor people can bootstrap huge medical bills then ISPs can handle some simple regulation. e: you didn't make that point about prioritizing rich over poor etc, that was directed more broadly at net neutrality opponents

JoshTriplett 10y ago
My argument isn't "this is complicated so let's not"; it's "this is complicated and needs to be handled with care, not with a trivial attempted fix like 'dumb pipes only' the way people often seem to think". Together with a healthy dose of "regulation has historically failed to adapt to future technologies". And we don't really want regulations that privilege the tech we currently know over the future tech we don't; that tends to lead in unpleasant directions, including regulatory capture and blocking of future competitors. I think the fundamental problem here is that in most locations we don't have a market at all, free or otherwise. We're looking at all these restrictions in an effort to work around the fundamental problem of "people have little to no choice in ISPs". If you're going to have one ISP in an area and regulate its behavior heavily, you might as well just have the government run it. (Note: that's not a recommendation.) I'd be entirely in favor of solving the problem by saying "last-mile infrastructure (from customers all the way to the nearest meet-me room) is a public utility, all ISPs have to remain separate from the last-mile infrastructure". If the average customer had a choice of half a dozen or more ISPs, none of these problems would arise, because any ISP stupid enough to make services deliberately worse would get dropped in favor of ISPs that don't. ISPs could then compete on everything from services provided, customer service, neutrality, geek-friendliness, IPv6 availability, CDNs/mirrors, or anything else they think people want.
- amazon_not 10y ago
  > "this is complicated and needs to be handled with care, not with a trivial attempted fix like 'dumb pipes only' the way people often seem to think" Why do you think turning ISPs into dumb pipes only would not fix most, if not all, problems? The reason we have all these problems is that the ISPs do not want to be dumb pipes only.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    Because many customers don't actually want a dumb pipe. Dumb pipes don't come with email addresses. Dumb pipes serve YouTube more slowly, and might not have the capacity for HD/4K video. (Look at what server the video comes from; if you're on a major ISP, the server name likely has your ISP's name in it.) Dumb pipes serve Netflix more slowly. Dumb pipes can't hold as many customers. Dumb pipes might not get as many customers. Dumb pipes cost more. Personally, I'd like a dumb pipe only as far as the nearest major datacenter, and then quite a lot of smarts in that datacenter. I don't just want a raw connection to a major bandwidth provider, though. See also the last paragraph of my previous reply: I'd be in favor of separating out the "dumb pipe" as a utility, and then having ISPs operate independently from that. I think that would solve the majority of the problems.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > Dumb pipes don't come with email addresses. Neither do rack servers. End customers don't buy the dumb pipe directly. > Dumb pipes can't hold as many customers. The same fiber can transfer the same amount of traffic. > Dumb pipes cost more. Cost more than paying monopoly prices for services? > I'd be in favor of separating out the "dumb pipe" as a utility, and then having ISPs operate independently from that. I think that would solve the majority of the problems. Sure it would. But it has to be one or the other. Would Comcast rather have network neutrality or divest its ISP/TV business?
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        > Neither do rack servers. End customers don't buy the dumb pipe directly. Of course; they buy it from ISPs, and now you have the same problem again. > The same fiber can transfer the same amount of traffic. It doesn't matter how much your fiber can transfer if the arrangements at the meet-me room can't get you that much content for a price you want to pay. > Cost more than paying monopoly prices for services? For the same bandwidth? Yes. Raw bandwidth costs more than a plan from an ISP offering that much bandwidth. > Would Comcast rather have network neutrality or divest its ISP/TV business? I don't want a single choice of ISP, whether that ISP has agreed to network neutrality restrictions or to divest any particular services. I'd like a dozen ISPs to choose from, and then the rest stops causing a problem.

by and0 10y ago

JoshTriplett 10y ago

My argument isn't "this is complicated so let's not"; it's "this is complicated and needs to be handled with care, not with a trivial attempted fix like 'dumb pipes only' the way people often seem to think". Together with a healthy dose of "regulation has historically failed to adapt to future technologies". And we don't really want regulations that privilege the tech we currently know over the future tech we don't; that tends to lead in unpleasant directions, including regulatory capture and blocking of future competitors. I think the fundamental problem here is that in most locations we don't have a market at all, free or otherwise. We're looking at all these restrictions in an effort to work around the fundamental problem of "people have little to no choice in ISPs". If you're going to have one ISP in an area and regulate its behavior heavily, you might as well just have the government run it. (Note: that's not a recommendation.) I'd be entirely in favor of solving the problem by saying "last-mile infrastructure (from customers all the way to the nearest meet-me room) is a public utility, all ISPs have to remain separate from the last-mile infrastructure". If the average customer had a choice of half a dozen or more ISPs, none of these problems would arise, because any ISP stupid enough to make services deliberately worse would get dropped in favor of ISPs that don't. ISPs could then compete on everything from services provided, customer service, neutrality, geek-friendliness, IPv6 availability, CDNs/mirrors, or anything else they think people want.

amazon_not 10y ago
> "this is complicated and needs to be handled with care, not with a trivial attempted fix like 'dumb pipes only' the way people often seem to think" Why do you think turning ISPs into dumb pipes only would not fix most, if not all, problems? The reason we have all these problems is that the ISPs do not want to be dumb pipes only.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  Because many customers don't actually want a dumb pipe. Dumb pipes don't come with email addresses. Dumb pipes serve YouTube more slowly, and might not have the capacity for HD/4K video. (Look at what server the video comes from; if you're on a major ISP, the server name likely has your ISP's name in it.) Dumb pipes serve Netflix more slowly. Dumb pipes can't hold as many customers. Dumb pipes might not get as many customers. Dumb pipes cost more. Personally, I'd like a dumb pipe only as far as the nearest major datacenter, and then quite a lot of smarts in that datacenter. I don't just want a raw connection to a major bandwidth provider, though. See also the last paragraph of my previous reply: I'd be in favor of separating out the "dumb pipe" as a utility, and then having ISPs operate independently from that. I think that would solve the majority of the problems.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > Dumb pipes don't come with email addresses. Neither do rack servers. End customers don't buy the dumb pipe directly. > Dumb pipes can't hold as many customers. The same fiber can transfer the same amount of traffic. > Dumb pipes cost more. Cost more than paying monopoly prices for services? > I'd be in favor of separating out the "dumb pipe" as a utility, and then having ISPs operate independently from that. I think that would solve the majority of the problems. Sure it would. But it has to be one or the other. Would Comcast rather have network neutrality or divest its ISP/TV business?
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      > Neither do rack servers. End customers don't buy the dumb pipe directly. Of course; they buy it from ISPs, and now you have the same problem again. > The same fiber can transfer the same amount of traffic. It doesn't matter how much your fiber can transfer if the arrangements at the meet-me room can't get you that much content for a price you want to pay. > Cost more than paying monopoly prices for services? For the same bandwidth? Yes. Raw bandwidth costs more than a plan from an ISP offering that much bandwidth. > Would Comcast rather have network neutrality or divest its ISP/TV business? I don't want a single choice of ISP, whether that ISP has agreed to network neutrality restrictions or to divest any particular services. I'd like a dozen ISPs to choose from, and then the rest stops causing a problem.