5 ms·

There is a reasonable argument for not wanting the FCC involved in setting technical policy for how a carrier runs its own network. It is at best disingenuous

by rdl 13y ago

There is a reasonable argument for not wanting the FCC involved in setting technical policy for how a carrier runs its own network. It is at best disingenuous to claim "net neutrality regulation" is the only way to save the Internet. Yes, I want the initial effects of net neutrality (mainly cheap access to comcast by CDNs and major hosting providers) If someone builds a non-monopoly network, perhaps via multi-dwelling metro ethernet or fixed wireless, I want that network to be able to implement whatever QoS they want. If that means 155M links to buildings with 500 subscribers and some kind of local CDN node for video content which is "free" and QoS on other traffic, that's a win for consumers. The correct place for requiring neutrality is when local governments negotiate with carriers for any monopoly rights. In exchange for a geographic monopoly on laying infrastructure, it would be reasonable to demand reasonable-and-non-discriminatory access to the network. From a practical perspective, local governments are probably too technically and generally incapable of negotiating with big companies like Comcast, but that's a problem we're already facing. Model contracts would probably help with that, or state regulators.

api 13y ago
> In exchange for a geographic monopoly on laying infrastructure, it would be reasonable to demand reasonable-and-non-discriminatory access to the network. Unfortunately state and local regulatory capture is often far more egregious than Federal due to lack of attention and oversight. Having the FCC whack the whole thing with one big mallet may be the only option we have.
gojomo 13y ago
Leaving it to localities also enables more experimentation and inter-locality competition (as with Google Fiber rollouts)... while national rules create a premature uniformity.
- rdl 13y ago
  One of the experiments I'd like to see is someone getting either a highly-regulated utility (possibly even municipality-owned) or some level of highly competitive market correct. I don't think a local government should be in the business of delivering IP to residential/business customers, but having an exceptionally easy process for trenching might work, or conduit, or dark fiber (or even lit fiber to areas). After a century, we're still innovating on the power networks (net metering, etc.). We might even be in the Edison vs. Tesla days for IP.
  - gojomo 13y ago
    Or even just wifi access-points on telephone poles. Municipalities can be dumb and captured, but when a few innovate, and then the laggards are embarrassed, deeper and more interesting change will happen, compared to anything that can happen through a DC/FCC/DNC/RNC lobbying process.
josho 13y ago
You've got my up vote for your argument on giving a new network the right to choose to do QoS. But, I disagree on your conclusions. The FCC's previous decisions to keep the existing carriers from becoming common carriers was supposed to incentive new broadband service. New broadband service did not happen, your theorized metro ethernet never came about. So, since we are stuck with regional monopolies granting them further privileges is blindingly stupid. You are correct as well to say that it is "disingenuous to claim net neutrality is the only way to save the 'net". Another option was to open up the infrastructure & allow competition on it, like other countries have successfully done. But, the FCC has already chosen not to do that leading us to where we are today.
- rdl 13y ago
  There's metro ethernet for businesses in a lot of markets. And weird stuff like Sonic's flexlink, and of course things like Cogent. The residential market is horrible, but I think the economics of providing good networking to suburban homes are difficult. In cities like SF, the city itself is a major impediment. In a place like Austin, there should be a lot more options than there are (thank you, Google!). Business service and multi-dwelling building service is where I think there's a lot of untapped potential.
brokenparser 13y ago
There may be some misconceptions here, so I'll clarify a few things just in case: 1) Net neutrality doesn't mean everyone gets the exact same speed. ISPs are free to offer a plethora of offerings each with their own price, speed and extras (if any). There are also no new guarantees to subscribers, i.e. if the wiring is crap deal with it. 2) CDNs have nothing to do with net neutrality. A typical large ISP will offer co-location services and content providers may use the service the same as any other customer. There can even be other arrangements as they see fit, but the important thing is that no one messes with the tubes. 3) Again, just in case because this is brought up a lot, ISPs can still offer filtered subscriptions. There's a market demand for filtered subscriptions and catering to that demand is fair game. 4) ISPs are still free to apply filters on traffic in the interests of maintaining their network. This is important for example when dealing with (D)DoS attacks or worm outbreaks. Net neutrality levels the playing field for content providers, so if you get VoIP from your ISP the service may still be better than that of a given competitor by virtue of having less latency. But what the ISP cannot do is artificially inflate their advantage, as doing so would be in violation of a free market on the Internet. EDIT: disambiguated things
- icebraining 13y ago
  But what the ISP cannot do is artificially inflate their advantage, as doing so would be in violation of a free market on the Internet. Can we please stop using this term, please? It's pretty clear that we can't agree on a definition of "free market"(¹), so we might as well stop using it. (¹) For many people, the idea that one must restrict the ISP and subscriber's freedom of contract to preserve the free market is a logical contradiction.
  - brokenparser 13y ago
    Yes, there's no one true definition of a free market but to say there's a logical contradiction rather strikes me as a jump to conclusions. What I meant was, impeding the flow of packets to or from competing networks prevents free trade on the Internet. It's easy to get the two mixed up, but the parallels between net neutrality and the rise of free trade in the 18th and 19th century seem realistic imho. I'm no historian though, merely biased by being on the content provider side of the fence.

by rdl 13y ago

api 13y ago

> In exchange for a geographic monopoly on laying infrastructure, it would be reasonable to demand reasonable-and-non-discriminatory access to the network. Unfortunately state and local regulatory capture is often far more egregious than Federal due to lack of attention and oversight. Having the FCC whack the whole thing with one big mallet may be the only option we have.

gojomo 13y ago

Leaving it to localities also enables more experimentation and inter-locality competition (as with Google Fiber rollouts)... while national rules create a premature uniformity.

rdl 13y ago
One of the experiments I'd like to see is someone getting either a highly-regulated utility (possibly even municipality-owned) or some level of highly competitive market correct. I don't think a local government should be in the business of delivering IP to residential/business customers, but having an exceptionally easy process for trenching might work, or conduit, or dark fiber (or even lit fiber to areas). After a century, we're still innovating on the power networks (net metering, etc.). We might even be in the Edison vs. Tesla days for IP.
- gojomo 13y ago
  Or even just wifi access-points on telephone poles. Municipalities can be dumb and captured, but when a few innovate, and then the laggards are embarrassed, deeper and more interesting change will happen, compared to anything that can happen through a DC/FCC/DNC/RNC lobbying process.

josho 13y ago

You've got my up vote for your argument on giving a new network the right to choose to do QoS. But, I disagree on your conclusions. The FCC's previous decisions to keep the existing carriers from becoming common carriers was supposed to incentive new broadband service. New broadband service did not happen, your theorized metro ethernet never came about. So, since we are stuck with regional monopolies granting them further privileges is blindingly stupid. You are correct as well to say that it is "disingenuous to claim net neutrality is the only way to save the 'net". Another option was to open up the infrastructure & allow competition on it, like other countries have successfully done. But, the FCC has already chosen not to do that leading us to where we are today.

rdl 13y ago
There's metro ethernet for businesses in a lot of markets. And weird stuff like Sonic's flexlink, and of course things like Cogent. The residential market is horrible, but I think the economics of providing good networking to suburban homes are difficult. In cities like SF, the city itself is a major impediment. In a place like Austin, there should be a lot more options than there are (thank you, Google!). Business service and multi-dwelling building service is where I think there's a lot of untapped potential.

brokenparser 13y ago

There may be some misconceptions here, so I'll clarify a few things just in case: 1) Net neutrality doesn't mean everyone gets the exact same speed. ISPs are free to offer a plethora of offerings each with their own price, speed and extras (if any). There are also no new guarantees to subscribers, i.e. if the wiring is crap deal with it. 2) CDNs have nothing to do with net neutrality. A typical large ISP will offer co-location services and content providers may use the service the same as any other customer. There can even be other arrangements as they see fit, but the important thing is that no one messes with the tubes. 3) Again, just in case because this is brought up a lot, ISPs can still offer filtered subscriptions. There's a market demand for filtered subscriptions and catering to that demand is fair game. 4) ISPs are still free to apply filters on traffic in the interests of maintaining their network. This is important for example when dealing with (D)DoS attacks or worm outbreaks. Net neutrality levels the playing field for content providers, so if you get VoIP from your ISP the service may still be better than that of a given competitor by virtue of having less latency. But what the ISP cannot do is artificially inflate their advantage, as doing so would be in violation of a free market on the Internet. EDIT: disambiguated things

icebraining 13y ago
But what the ISP cannot do is artificially inflate their advantage, as doing so would be in violation of a free market on the Internet. Can we please stop using this term, please? It's pretty clear that we can't agree on a definition of "free market"(¹), so we might as well stop using it. (¹) For many people, the idea that one must restrict the ISP and subscriber's freedom of contract to preserve the free market is a logical contradiction.
- brokenparser 13y ago
  Yes, there's no one true definition of a free market but to say there's a logical contradiction rather strikes me as a jump to conclusions. What I meant was, impeding the flow of packets to or from competing networks prevents free trade on the Internet. It's easy to get the two mixed up, but the parallels between net neutrality and the rise of free trade in the 18th and 19th century seem realistic imho. I'm no historian though, merely biased by being on the content provider side of the fence.