4 ms·

I can't help but think this is one potential super cluster of potential unintended consequences, if it ever happens. Net neutrality implementation, or enforcem

by kokey 12y ago

I can't help but think this is one potential super cluster of potential unintended consequences, if it ever happens. Net neutrality implementation, or enforcement, has been in limbo for a very long time, and exploitation as a result of the lack of such action has been mostly theoretical. Then there are all these proposals that doesn't consider many things, like this one from Mozilla which excludes interconnects and peering, how would we deal with discrimination exercised through simply not peering or interconnecting? Or, if that gets to be 'made neutral', what's the point of a CDN apart from reducing latency? Then, if I run a video service from Seattle will an ISP in Miami be forced to make sure they have an adequately sized interconnects with me, or a provider one tier above them have to? Also, it's not like there is discrimination right now, how many domestic access providers allow outbound access on port 25, or multicast, or BGP? What about all the research with game theoretical models about this? What about other countries that has no neutrality legislation on the horizon? What about the fact that commercial internet started less neutral (before PPP/SLIP) with limited access to limited protocols and ended up more neutral over time without intervention apart from customer demand? What if the last mile is wireless and certain services would become viable only if it's restricted? What if I want to provide $1/month access to only Wikipedia? To me, personally, it sounds like the problem net neutrality is supposed to deal with is badly defined, or a symptom of another set of problems, and the solutions are defined even worse and has the potential to create even more problems.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> how would we deal with discrimination exercised through simply not peering or interconnecting? The simple solution is to require last mile ISPs to do settlement-free peering with anyone who brings traffic for their customers into their facilities. > Or, if that gets to be 'made neutral', what's the point of a CDN apart from reducing latency? The point of a CDN is that it's more efficient. By having facilities closer to the end users, a CDN has lower costs and could charge customers less to deliver the same amount of content than you would have to pay e.g. Level 3 for that amount of transit. > Then, if I run a video service from Seattle will an ISP in Miami be forced to make sure they have an adequately sized interconnects with me, or a provider one tier above them have to? If you run a video service from Seattle then you still have to somehow bring your traffic to Miami before you could peer with an ISP in Miami. If you do that by paying a transit provider then obviously the transit provider will have to supply the amount of capacity you're paying them to get and they'll charge you accordingly. > Also, it's not like there is discrimination right now, how many domestic access providers allow outbound access on port 25, or multicast, or BGP? Blocking port 25 by default is an anti-spam measure. In general if you call your ISP and ask them to unblock it, they will. They're not blocking it because they don't want you use it, they're blocking it because you want them to. BGP is pretty much the same deal. And requiring last mile ISPs to support multicast would probably be a good thing. > What about all the research with game theoretical models about this? Such as? > What about other countries that has no neutrality legislation on the horizon? If we had to do what everybody else is doing then we would have to have government-operated ISPs or local loop unbundling. > What about the fact that commercial internet started less neutral (before PPP/SLIP) with limited access to limited protocols and ended up more neutral over time without intervention apart from customer demand? That happened in the dial up days when there was more competition between ISPs because the "last mile" was literally the phone network. It was a result of de facto local loop unbundling. > What if the last mile is wireless and certain services would become viable only if it's restricted? What services would those be? > What if I want to provide $1/month access to only Wikipedia? An enterprise that builds a last mile ISP solely to provide access to Wikipedia for $1/month is not a thing in any danger of occurring.
- belorn 12y ago
  CDN also do traffic spikes. If a MMO pushes a >100MB update to a several millions subscribers at the same time, no single network connection could handle it. CDN make it possible to push massive amount of information fast and it limits the risk of service disruptions. The benefits of CDN's are thus mostly unaffected by Net Neutrality.

by kokey 12y ago

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> how would we deal with discrimination exercised through simply not peering or interconnecting? The simple solution is to require last mile ISPs to do settlement-free peering with anyone who brings traffic for their customers into their facilities. > Or, if that gets to be 'made neutral', what's the point of a CDN apart from reducing latency? The point of a CDN is that it's more efficient. By having facilities closer to the end users, a CDN has lower costs and could charge customers less to deliver the same amount of content than you would have to pay e.g. Level 3 for that amount of transit. > Then, if I run a video service from Seattle will an ISP in Miami be forced to make sure they have an adequately sized interconnects with me, or a provider one tier above them have to? If you run a video service from Seattle then you still have to somehow bring your traffic to Miami before you could peer with an ISP in Miami. If you do that by paying a transit provider then obviously the transit provider will have to supply the amount of capacity you're paying them to get and they'll charge you accordingly. > Also, it's not like there is discrimination right now, how many domestic access providers allow outbound access on port 25, or multicast, or BGP? Blocking port 25 by default is an anti-spam measure. In general if you call your ISP and ask them to unblock it, they will. They're not blocking it because they don't want you use it, they're blocking it because you want them to. BGP is pretty much the same deal. And requiring last mile ISPs to support multicast would probably be a good thing. > What about all the research with game theoretical models about this? Such as? > What about other countries that has no neutrality legislation on the horizon? If we had to do what everybody else is doing then we would have to have government-operated ISPs or local loop unbundling. > What about the fact that commercial internet started less neutral (before PPP/SLIP) with limited access to limited protocols and ended up more neutral over time without intervention apart from customer demand? That happened in the dial up days when there was more competition between ISPs because the "last mile" was literally the phone network. It was a result of de facto local loop unbundling. > What if the last mile is wireless and certain services would become viable only if it's restricted? What services would those be? > What if I want to provide $1/month access to only Wikipedia? An enterprise that builds a last mile ISP solely to provide access to Wikipedia for $1/month is not a thing in any danger of occurring.

belorn 12y ago
CDN also do traffic spikes. If a MMO pushes a >100MB update to a several millions subscribers at the same time, no single network connection could handle it. CDN make it possible to push massive amount of information fast and it limits the risk of service disruptions. The benefits of CDN's are thus mostly unaffected by Net Neutrality.