3 ms·

I think this article misses the point somewhat. There is nothing wrong with a company providing all these services, so long as they are not able to abuse their

I think this article misses the point somewhat. There is nothing wrong with a company providing all these services, so long as they are not able to abuse their position. Now, net neutrality is _a_ not very effective way of stopping dominance. But, its almost not what you think or want it to be. What you actually want is competition, so that when a company does something stupid (ie slow netflix to a crawl) you can up sticks and move to a better service. (no I don't mean a duopoly) Now, you've just seen me say that NN isn't what you want. Let me unpack that rather controversial statement. Firstly NN is the equal treatment of _all_ traffic regardless of source, protocol or destination. You really don't want that, as it means that real time stuff will get hampered by bulk traffic, and bulk traffic knobs (you know the people that are more than willing to spend $25 a month on a torrent box, $500 on local storage each quarter, but not pay for content.) Will get a free pass. On the flip side, it means offers like http://www.three.co.uk/go-binge/shows http://www.three.co.uk/go-binge/shows (watching netflix doesn't count towards your mobile internet cap) can't happen. Now, judging by whats happening to Three, this is what customers actually want. So, what America needs is bulk transit ripped away from the big three. Where there is ISP dominance in one area, Regulated wholesale prices, allowing virtual operators to provide internet using rented last mile infrastructure. This is not perfect, as unless you fully strip those providing last mile infrastructure from those providing ISP functions, there will be a reluctance to roll out new technologies in less profitable areas.

niftich 8y ago
The classic way of leveraging private investment in some kind of capacity-carrying infrastructure for public good is to rule it a common carrier [1]. All of this 'Title II'/'net neutrality' spat of the last few years is about how one regulator, the FCC, interprets various laws (including the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications act of 1996) about where ISPs fall [2], court cases and ruling that have been brought in its wake [3], the FCC's change in approach in response to those court cases [4], and a bunch of complicating factors about whether the FCC or the FTC is the appropriate regulatory body that decides the exact regulatory regime. So, without further lawmaking, that ship has sailed. So if we can't adopt some rule that would treat privately-owned cables, let's say on the last mile, as common carriers, what are some other options? Deny further vertical mergers affecting telecom infrastructure? This doesn't solve the current entrenchment. Let localities take the issue into their own hands and build out publicly-owned networks that would support open access for providers running on top? This is a sensible idea, that's currently difficult to pursue in almost half of the states [5], and most legislative efforts to make this difficult have come from Republican lawmakers [6][7], despite citizens of all political leanings in favor of localities being allowed to do this [8][9]. [1] https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMathenstien/network-neutrality-a-history-of-common-carrier-laws-1884-2018-2b592f22ed2e https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMathenstien/network-neutrality-a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... [4] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/fcc-v... [5] https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks-by-state/ https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... [6] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-lawmaker-has-proposed-banning-municipal-broadband-networks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-la... [7] https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/81c82846-aa7c-42fe-be4d-11b0f9527db0/12.11.15-letter-to-fcc-chairman-wheeler-on-municipal-broadband-final.pdf https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/81c82846-... [8] https://muninetworks.org/content/pew-survey-reveals-overwhelming-support-local-authority https://muninetworks.org/content/pew-survey-reveals-overwhel... [9] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/10/americans-have-mixed-views-on-policies-encouraging-broadband-adoption/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/10/americans-ha...
telchar 8y ago
You seem to be making an argument that I have seen a lot, in short (paraphrased): A free open competitive market is ideal therefore you should seek that instead of net neutrality. Don't ask for net neutrality. I disagree. Net neutrality is not a problem. See [0] for a previous take on the misguided notion that QoS and net neutrality are at odds. It might be an ideal solution if we could nationalize network infrastructure and guarantee local loop unbundling, as I think you are suggesting. But we are so far away from that possibility in the US that you seem to be advocating against net neutrality in favor of effectively the status quo. Let's not throw support for net neutrality out the window in favor of a far away pipe dream or for unproved, supposed benefits from getting rid of it. Let's get back net neutrality first, in legislation this time, then see if we still think we need to nationalize the network infrastructure. If I am misunderstanding your proposal then maybe you could clarify. 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8125588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8125588
- KaiserPro 8y ago
  ah, no, I'm not asking for a free and open market. I'm asking for a regulated market steered towards competition. What the US has now is a free and open market, well the logical conclusion of it. (the carnivorous rats on the island model) The lack of regulation to stop consolidation is a big problem. The need right now is for AT&T to not merge with time warner. I don't think nationalisation is what is required, I think separation of last mile infrastructure from client ISPs. This means that the Motivation for the infrastructure company is to provide stable reliable last mile connections. Because they are going to be used regardless of who is supplying connectivity, it doesn't affect investment. All of this can be achieved with private companies (indeed thats how it works in most EU countries) This also lowers the cost of ISP startup drastically. As for QoS, I love QoS, it means that my ADSL connection can still have low latency stuff (audio, video games) even though I share the same uplink with torrenting arseholes. But, I don't see how, with the weakness that is the FCC, they are going to legally distinguish between QoS to regulate service (ie bulk downloading via torrenting) and bulk downloading of a video on demand service. Both have the same strain, both are video services, both can be throttled to mask the lack of investment in backhaul infrastructure. both need to be "shaped" to allow customers to use the ISP's "services" evenly. I'd also like to point out that NN has only been a thing for <2 years.
pessimizer 8y ago
You seem to be interpreting net neutrality solely as a method to protect the company Netflix. > You really don't want that, as it means that real time stuff will get hampered by bulk traffic, and bulk traffic knobs (you know the people that are more than willing to spend $25 a month on a torrent box, $500 on local storage each quarter, but not pay for content.) Will get a free pass. No, I do want this. Just meter your service, stop selling it as unlimited, and either have the capacity to serve the customers that you've acquired, drop customers, or add capacity. Don't discriminate between a $25 torrent box and the company Netflix because that's what you think the people want.
- KaiserPro 8y ago
  s/netflix/other commercial bulk bandwidth service/ Netflix is the example that works best, as the "man on the Clapham omnibus" can easily understand what it is, and why throttling it is bad for the customer. Metering doesn't get round this, as that doesn't do anything much to cap peak load, there is still no reason for an ISP to invest in transit, or indeed allowing more edge caching boxes. (the customer isn't going to go away, so why put money into expanding edge footprint) The only way capacity is going to be built is if there is an incentive (be it legal, cash or other) Why would an ISP drop paying customers _and_ invest in extra infrastructure?

niftich 8y ago

The classic way of leveraging private investment in some kind of capacity-carrying infrastructure for public good is to rule it a common carrier [1]. All of this 'Title II'/'net neutrality' spat of the last few years is about how one regulator, the FCC, interprets various laws (including the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications act of 1996) about where ISPs fall [2], court cases and ruling that have been brought in its wake [3], the FCC's change in approach in response to those court cases [4], and a bunch of complicating factors about whether the FCC or the FTC is the appropriate regulatory body that decides the exact regulatory regime. So, without further lawmaking, that ship has sailed. So if we can't adopt some rule that would treat privately-owned cables, let's say on the last mile, as common carriers, what are some other options? Deny further vertical mergers affecting telecom infrastructure? This doesn't solve the current entrenchment. Let localities take the issue into their own hands and build out publicly-owned networks that would support open access for providers running on top? This is a sensible idea, that's currently difficult to pursue in almost half of the states [5], and most legislative efforts to make this difficult have come from Republican lawmakers [6][7], despite citizens of all political leanings in favor of localities being allowed to do this [8][9]. [1] https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMathenstien/network-neutrality-a-history-of-common-carrier-laws-1884-2018-2b592f22ed2e https://medium.com/@TebbaVonMathenstien/network-neutrality-a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v.... [4] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/fcc-votes-for-net-neutrality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/fcc-v... [5] https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks-by-state/ https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadbloc... [6] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-lawmaker-has-proposed-banning-municipal-broadband-networks/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/another-state-la... [7] https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/81c82846-aa7c-42fe-be4d-11b0f9527db0/12.11.15-letter-to-fcc-chairman-wheeler-on-municipal-broadband-final.pdf https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/81c82846-... [8] https://muninetworks.org/content/pew-survey-reveals-overwhelming-support-local-authority https://muninetworks.org/content/pew-survey-reveals-overwhel... [9] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/10/americans-have-mixed-views-on-policies-encouraging-broadband-adoption/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/10/americans-ha...

telchar 8y ago

You seem to be making an argument that I have seen a lot, in short (paraphrased): A free open competitive market is ideal therefore you should seek that instead of net neutrality. Don't ask for net neutrality. I disagree. Net neutrality is not a problem. See [0] for a previous take on the misguided notion that QoS and net neutrality are at odds. It might be an ideal solution if we could nationalize network infrastructure and guarantee local loop unbundling, as I think you are suggesting. But we are so far away from that possibility in the US that you seem to be advocating against net neutrality in favor of effectively the status quo. Let's not throw support for net neutrality out the window in favor of a far away pipe dream or for unproved, supposed benefits from getting rid of it. Let's get back net neutrality first, in legislation this time, then see if we still think we need to nationalize the network infrastructure. If I am misunderstanding your proposal then maybe you could clarify. 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8125588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8125588

KaiserPro 8y ago
ah, no, I'm not asking for a free and open market. I'm asking for a regulated market steered towards competition. What the US has now is a free and open market, well the logical conclusion of it. (the carnivorous rats on the island model) The lack of regulation to stop consolidation is a big problem. The need right now is for AT&T to not merge with time warner. I don't think nationalisation is what is required, I think separation of last mile infrastructure from client ISPs. This means that the Motivation for the infrastructure company is to provide stable reliable last mile connections. Because they are going to be used regardless of who is supplying connectivity, it doesn't affect investment. All of this can be achieved with private companies (indeed thats how it works in most EU countries) This also lowers the cost of ISP startup drastically. As for QoS, I love QoS, it means that my ADSL connection can still have low latency stuff (audio, video games) even though I share the same uplink with torrenting arseholes. But, I don't see how, with the weakness that is the FCC, they are going to legally distinguish between QoS to regulate service (ie bulk downloading via torrenting) and bulk downloading of a video on demand service. Both have the same strain, both are video services, both can be throttled to mask the lack of investment in backhaul infrastructure. both need to be "shaped" to allow customers to use the ISP's "services" evenly. I'd also like to point out that NN has only been a thing for <2 years.

pessimizer 8y ago

You seem to be interpreting net neutrality solely as a method to protect the company Netflix. > You really don't want that, as it means that real time stuff will get hampered by bulk traffic, and bulk traffic knobs (you know the people that are more than willing to spend $25 a month on a torrent box, $500 on local storage each quarter, but not pay for content.) Will get a free pass. No, I do want this. Just meter your service, stop selling it as unlimited, and either have the capacity to serve the customers that you've acquired, drop customers, or add capacity. Don't discriminate between a $25 torrent box and the company Netflix because that's what you think the people want.

KaiserPro 8y ago
s/netflix/other commercial bulk bandwidth service/ Netflix is the example that works best, as the "man on the Clapham omnibus" can easily understand what it is, and why throttling it is bad for the customer. Metering doesn't get round this, as that doesn't do anything much to cap peak load, there is still no reason for an ISP to invest in transit, or indeed allowing more edge caching boxes. (the customer isn't going to go away, so why put money into expanding edge footprint) The only way capacity is going to be built is if there is an incentive (be it legal, cash or other) Why would an ISP drop paying customers _and_ invest in extra infrastructure?