4 ms·

> "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 yo

> "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.
    - amazon_not 10y ago
      > Of course; they buy it from ISPs, and now you have the same problem again. What problem? > 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. So free isn't enough for you? You can pretty much get as much content as you want, if you have the customer demand for it. Join an IX and you'll get as much content as you want for free for the cost of the port. If you got serious content demand, do a private interconnect and get the content for the price of a crossconnect. There are facilities with no recurring costs for crossconnects. Need a shitload of content? The content providers will send you a CDN node to you, for free. In summary, your your statement is provably false. > Raw bandwidth costs more than a plan from an ISP offering that much bandwidth. You obviously never bought wholesale bandwidth. Wholesale IP transit is 20 cents or less per Mbps. IX peering is cheaper than that. Private interconnects, again cheaper. I don't see ISPs offering 100M connections for $20 or less. Again, your statement is provably false.
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        >> Of course; they buy it from ISPs, and now you have the same problem again. > What problem? The message I originally replied to said "End customers don't buy the dumb pipe directly." And once an ISP starts trying to provide value above and beyond the pipe, all the same questions about neutrality come up again. > If you got serious content demand, do a private interconnect and get the content for the price of a crossconnect. > The content providers will send you a CDN node to you, for free. What happened to "dumb pipe"? Both of these, especially the former, seem to contradict that. > You obviously never bought wholesale bandwidth. Wholesale IP transit is 20 cents or less per Mbps. IX peering is cheaper than that. Private interconnects, again cheaper. I have, in fact, looked into both wholesale bandwidth and IX peering (though not in the last year or two). Both of which, at least in the areas and exchanges I've looked in, were several times higher than the cost you're quoting. It's entirely possible that you have access to better information/markets, or that ISPs can get much lower pricing; I based the comment I made on the information I had. All the numbers I've seen suggested that raw bandwidth costs significantly more than ISPs charge for it, because consumer ISPs rarely expect 24/7 utilization of the full bandwidth, and likely also because they can provide some of the larger sources of content for free out of their own datacenter.
- amazon_not 10y ago
  > Because many customers don't actually want a dumb pipe. Yes, they do. That's exactly what they want. A dumb pipe that transports their bits and nothing more. I'm omitting your list about dumb pipes, as nothing you write has anything to do with dumb pipes and is all completely wrong. > 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. Hate to disappoint you, but there are no smarts in any ISP datacenter. It's just a big router and some interconnects. Raw bandwidth is all you get, if you are lucky. > 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. It's not that simple, there are a lot of implementation details that matter. Do you want local loop unbundling, bitstream access or only resale?
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    I think we have a serious problem of definitions (which goes back to what I said about this being not trivial to define): we're both saying the phrase "dumb pipe" and apparently meaning quite different things by it. Defining terms differently does not invalidate arguments, it just means we're talking past each other. > Do you want local loop unbundling, bitstream access or only resale? In an ideal world? A form of local loop unbundling, with a not-for-profit entity running/maintaining the local fiber, and umpteen ISPs readily available to handle termination and routing at the other end.
    - amazon_not 10y ago
      > I think we have a serious problem of definitions (which goes back to what I said about this being not trivial to define): we're both saying the phrase "dumb pipe" and apparently meaning quite different things by it. Really? How many definitions are there? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_pipe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_pipe http://www.hyperorg.com/misc/stupidnet.html http://www.hyperorg.com/misc/stupidnet.html > In an ideal world? A form of local loop unbundling, with a not-for-profit entity running/maintaining the local fiber, and umpteen ISPs readily available to handle termination and routing at the other end. That's nice. Now you've either locked out small/unsophisticated ISPs/network users who can't or can't afford to light the fiber or increased cost and/or complexity by requiring an additional service provider on top of the dark fiber provider to provide bitstream, retail and other transport services. Also excellent choice for finger pointing when these two actors donit get along.

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.
  - amazon_not 10y ago
    > Of course; they buy it from ISPs, and now you have the same problem again. What problem? > 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. So free isn't enough for you? You can pretty much get as much content as you want, if you have the customer demand for it. Join an IX and you'll get as much content as you want for free for the cost of the port. If you got serious content demand, do a private interconnect and get the content for the price of a crossconnect. There are facilities with no recurring costs for crossconnects. Need a shitload of content? The content providers will send you a CDN node to you, for free. In summary, your your statement is provably false. > Raw bandwidth costs more than a plan from an ISP offering that much bandwidth. You obviously never bought wholesale bandwidth. Wholesale IP transit is 20 cents or less per Mbps. IX peering is cheaper than that. Private interconnects, again cheaper. I don't see ISPs offering 100M connections for $20 or less. Again, your statement is provably false.
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      >> Of course; they buy it from ISPs, and now you have the same problem again. > What problem? The message I originally replied to said "End customers don't buy the dumb pipe directly." And once an ISP starts trying to provide value above and beyond the pipe, all the same questions about neutrality come up again. > If you got serious content demand, do a private interconnect and get the content for the price of a crossconnect. > The content providers will send you a CDN node to you, for free. What happened to "dumb pipe"? Both of these, especially the former, seem to contradict that. > You obviously never bought wholesale bandwidth. Wholesale IP transit is 20 cents or less per Mbps. IX peering is cheaper than that. Private interconnects, again cheaper. I have, in fact, looked into both wholesale bandwidth and IX peering (though not in the last year or two). Both of which, at least in the areas and exchanges I've looked in, were several times higher than the cost you're quoting. It's entirely possible that you have access to better information/markets, or that ISPs can get much lower pricing; I based the comment I made on the information I had. All the numbers I've seen suggested that raw bandwidth costs significantly more than ISPs charge for it, because consumer ISPs rarely expect 24/7 utilization of the full bandwidth, and likely also because they can provide some of the larger sources of content for free out of their own datacenter.
amazon_not 10y ago
> Because many customers don't actually want a dumb pipe. Yes, they do. That's exactly what they want. A dumb pipe that transports their bits and nothing more. I'm omitting your list about dumb pipes, as nothing you write has anything to do with dumb pipes and is all completely wrong. > 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. Hate to disappoint you, but there are no smarts in any ISP datacenter. It's just a big router and some interconnects. Raw bandwidth is all you get, if you are lucky. > 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. It's not that simple, there are a lot of implementation details that matter. Do you want local loop unbundling, bitstream access or only resale?
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  I think we have a serious problem of definitions (which goes back to what I said about this being not trivial to define): we're both saying the phrase "dumb pipe" and apparently meaning quite different things by it. Defining terms differently does not invalidate arguments, it just means we're talking past each other. > Do you want local loop unbundling, bitstream access or only resale? In an ideal world? A form of local loop unbundling, with a not-for-profit entity running/maintaining the local fiber, and umpteen ISPs readily available to handle termination and routing at the other end.
  - amazon_not 10y ago
    > I think we have a serious problem of definitions (which goes back to what I said about this being not trivial to define): we're both saying the phrase "dumb pipe" and apparently meaning quite different things by it. Really? How many definitions are there? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_pipe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_pipe http://www.hyperorg.com/misc/stupidnet.html http://www.hyperorg.com/misc/stupidnet.html > In an ideal world? A form of local loop unbundling, with a not-for-profit entity running/maintaining the local fiber, and umpteen ISPs readily available to handle termination and routing at the other end. That's nice. Now you've either locked out small/unsophisticated ISPs/network users who can't or can't afford to light the fiber or increased cost and/or complexity by requiring an additional service provider on top of the dark fiber provider to provide bitstream, retail and other transport services. Also excellent choice for finger pointing when these two actors donit get along.