4 ms·

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

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.
- bkor 8y ago
  > I'd also like to point out that NN has only been a thing for <2 years. This is not true. The most recent law was in place for 2 years. It existed in other forms for a long time before that.
- telchar 8y ago
  I think you're right that AT&T and Time Warner should not be allowed to merge. What you're proposing WRT the last mile is similar to what I favor, which is banning content/copyright owners/studios from also owning the network infrastructure. There would be some subtleties there but I think it could be ironed out reasonably well. From an economic incentive perspective it just makes sense. Regarding QoS, why couldn't you as the client choose which packets are to be considered high-priority? Is it that you want to be able to saturate your connection with high priority packets that supercede your neighbor's packets if you're on a video call? Maybe a NN-friendly compromise is that everyone gets a % of their connection that get to be high-priority packets (you choose which) and you can pay more for a bigger pipe. Therefore if you want 1M up at high priority you need a 5M pipe. Your neighbor can keep their 1M pipe but only 200k of their packets can be high priority. (to throw out some numbers). It seems fair and gives you QoS options while not violating NN, which I think is overall more important than QoS anyway.

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.

bkor 8y ago
> I'd also like to point out that NN has only been a thing for <2 years. This is not true. The most recent law was in place for 2 years. It existed in other forms for a long time before that.
telchar 8y ago
I think you're right that AT&T and Time Warner should not be allowed to merge. What you're proposing WRT the last mile is similar to what I favor, which is banning content/copyright owners/studios from also owning the network infrastructure. There would be some subtleties there but I think it could be ironed out reasonably well. From an economic incentive perspective it just makes sense. Regarding QoS, why couldn't you as the client choose which packets are to be considered high-priority? Is it that you want to be able to saturate your connection with high priority packets that supercede your neighbor's packets if you're on a video call? Maybe a NN-friendly compromise is that everyone gets a % of their connection that get to be high-priority packets (you choose which) and you can pay more for a bigger pipe. Therefore if you want 1M up at high priority you need a 5M pipe. Your neighbor can keep their 1M pipe but only 200k of their packets can be high priority. (to throw out some numbers). It seems fair and gives you QoS options while not violating NN, which I think is overall more important than QoS anyway.