5 ms·

> Latency is an end-to-end metric which will almost always involve path components beyond the control of your ISP - can and should they be held responsible for

> Latency is an end-to-end metric which will almost always involve path components beyond the control of your ISP - can and should they be held responsible for those paths? They could invest in peering and other arrangements that improve these paths.

eru 3y ago
Yes. But that's orthogonal to labeling requirements.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  No it isn't. The fact that an ISP can make such an investment means that they should be held (at least partially) responsible for doing so.
  - eru 3y ago
    Yes? Customers should definitely hold their suppliers responsible for features of the product the customers care about. But what does have to do with labeling requirements? Eg patrons should hold restaurants accountable for the taste of the food, even (and especially because) taste is subjective. But that doesn't mean that we should try to shoehorn subjective taste into mandatory labeling requirements.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      Customers literally can't, because ISPs are not a competitive market, and customers have no means to change that. Hell, my current ISP is literally written into my lease agreement. If I could vote with my wallet, I would.
      - eru 3y ago
        Well, that's a problem with your lease agreement. (I assume you are talking about the lease of your apartment?) Even the most competitive market for ISPs couldn't fix your lease agreement. In any case, the fix for not having a competitive market is not to pile on even more red tape that makes it harder for scrappy upstarts [0], but by removing barriers to entry. I don't know too much about the US market for ISPs. But I do know that eg satellite internet doesn't get automatically approved: there's lot of red tape star link and others have to jump through. Cut that red tape, and also make it easier for foreign companies to become ISPs. A read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_wireless_spectrum_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_wireless_sp... also suggest significant extra red tape. Btw, a simple idea (inspired by that Wikipedia article) would be to make both TV stations and ISPs compete on equal footing in the auction: whoever bids most gets to use the spectrum as they please. Instead of deciding by administrative fiat which parts of the spectrum to use for broadcast TV and which for mobile broadband. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_auction#Goals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_auction#Goals says: > "In designing auctions for spectrum licenses, the FCC is required by law to meet multiple goals and not focus simply on maximizing receipts. Those goals include ensuring efficient use of the spectrum, promoting economic opportunity and competition, avoiding excessive concentration of licenses, preventing the unjust enrichment of any party, and fostering the rapid deployment of new services, as well as recovering for the public a portion of the value of the spectrum." In other words, politicians and bureaucrats reserved the rights to hold beauty contests (which incumbents can win more easily, because of their existing connections), instead of running a simple auction. I'm sure there's lots of other barriers to entry you could dismantle. [0] To have any real teeth, that new labeling requirement needs to be contestable in court. But that means that you better have a real good lawyer to look over your label. Incumbents are much more likely to be able to afford good lawyers.
vmfunction 3y ago
yeah they ought to invest money on improving that instead of trying to have 5G or whatever is coming next.

eru 3y ago

Yes. But that's orthogonal to labeling requirements.

thomastjeffery 3y ago
No it isn't. The fact that an ISP can make such an investment means that they should be held (at least partially) responsible for doing so.
- eru 3y ago
  Yes? Customers should definitely hold their suppliers responsible for features of the product the customers care about. But what does have to do with labeling requirements? Eg patrons should hold restaurants accountable for the taste of the food, even (and especially because) taste is subjective. But that doesn't mean that we should try to shoehorn subjective taste into mandatory labeling requirements.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    Customers literally can't, because ISPs are not a competitive market, and customers have no means to change that. Hell, my current ISP is literally written into my lease agreement. If I could vote with my wallet, I would.
    - eru 3y ago
      Well, that's a problem with your lease agreement. (I assume you are talking about the lease of your apartment?) Even the most competitive market for ISPs couldn't fix your lease agreement. In any case, the fix for not having a competitive market is not to pile on even more red tape that makes it harder for scrappy upstarts [0], but by removing barriers to entry. I don't know too much about the US market for ISPs. But I do know that eg satellite internet doesn't get automatically approved: there's lot of red tape star link and others have to jump through. Cut that red tape, and also make it easier for foreign companies to become ISPs. A read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_wireless_spectrum_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_wireless_sp... also suggest significant extra red tape. Btw, a simple idea (inspired by that Wikipedia article) would be to make both TV stations and ISPs compete on equal footing in the auction: whoever bids most gets to use the spectrum as they please. Instead of deciding by administrative fiat which parts of the spectrum to use for broadcast TV and which for mobile broadband. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_auction#Goals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_auction#Goals says: > "In designing auctions for spectrum licenses, the FCC is required by law to meet multiple goals and not focus simply on maximizing receipts. Those goals include ensuring efficient use of the spectrum, promoting economic opportunity and competition, avoiding excessive concentration of licenses, preventing the unjust enrichment of any party, and fostering the rapid deployment of new services, as well as recovering for the public a portion of the value of the spectrum." In other words, politicians and bureaucrats reserved the rights to hold beauty contests (which incumbents can win more easily, because of their existing connections), instead of running a simple auction. I'm sure there's lots of other barriers to entry you could dismantle. [0] To have any real teeth, that new labeling requirement needs to be contestable in court. But that means that you better have a real good lawyer to look over your label. Incumbents are much more likely to be able to afford good lawyers.

vmfunction 3y ago

yeah they ought to invest money on improving that instead of trying to have 5G or whatever is coming next.