12 ms·

I believe the core problem here is that ISPs and infrastructure are owned by the same companies. Based on evidence from other countries, like Japan, these prob

by Osiris 12y ago

ep103 12y ago
yes, that would probably work, but they have such a huge influence on washington that at the moment we're having a hard time even keeping net neutrality alive.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=1xne7 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=1xne7
danielweber 12y ago
So the DSL infrastructure?
- seynb 12y ago
  >So the DSL infrastructure? It's not so much about the last mile anymore. Since most customers want bundled voice/data/video, it's about linear video channels and that means content. The big players are always going to have more clout in negotiating the best rates for their bundled channels because they have the most subs (subscribers). Even if FCC mandated unbundling of the CableCos' HFC plant and the Telcos' FTTx plant, no one will be able to compete with the big boys on content. Also, alot of these plants were not designed for interoperability with other vendors' equipment and troubleshooting would be difficult to impossible. It's no longer as simple as a 2-wire local loop (twisted pair) that you can break out from a split bank to your own frame and DSLAM. The technologies share the same physical media -- think bus topology like a token ring. One faulty ONT in a B-PON or G-PON network can impact service for ~30 customers. What the FCC could do is mandate the reselling of data services like UNE-P with POTS, and the reseller (e.g. Netflix) could then bundle their own pure VoD product for video over the carrier's data platform So, deregulation (unbundling - platform) is one option. Otherwise, there would have to be a mandated and fair policy for exchange data between ISPs either at free or at tariffed rates across the board, just like voice trunks. Data is the new voice and the FCC needs to weigh in and start (de)/regulating or this is what the internet is going to look like 10 years from now. a.pomf.se/qtkuqv.jpg
  - danielweber 12y ago
    That JPG is one of the worst arguments on the Internet. It's popular because it works up the rage of "this might happen" netizens, but "might" has been reduced to "doesn't violate the laws of physics."
    - seynb 12y ago
      But, it's not just FUD. https://secure.dslreports.com/forum/r20614148- https://secure.dslreports.com/forum/r20614148- Taxpayer subsidies helped build the telco network, not dime one of which has been repaid. Meanwhile, they https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Study-We-Should-Kill-Copper-Since-Youre-Not-Using-It-126145 https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Study-We-Should-K... rip out the copper because it's no longer as profitable (as a regulated service) as video and wireless. Cablecos that have a captive market raise their rates as much as their consumer base will bear. As soon as carriers can find a way to monetize something, they won't stop. Value-added services, fees, rate-hikes. It's rent-seeking behavior, like the railroad tycoons. Cable & telco greed is practically a law of physics. That's why we have regulated service for electricity and telephone, because we recognize how essential it is to modern life. And it should be no different for internet.
      - danielweber 12y ago
        Even if I bought all your negative emotions about ISPs[1], none of your scare scenarios are at all about the ISP charging more money to the customer depending on what websites they go to.[2] Even right now, with whatever asshattery Verizon is doing, they haven't even peeped one single word about making the customers of theirs that use Netflix pay more money to Verizon. "These people do bad things, so you should believe these other bad things I say they might someday do." Lots of people have made very good careers out of enraging the rabble that way. [1] Your first link uses a bunch of Google searches as evidence, so I can't be 100% sure what it's talking about. But there's a decent chance it's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709910 forex [2] The second article is about AT&T wanting to get the hell out of the wired communication business. Investors hate the wired business. One way or another you have to pay for that infrastructure, and talking about applying utility-level regulation to the companies eager to leave is not going to draw in new dollars.
seynb 12y ago
>I believe the core problem here is that ISPs and infrastructure are owned by the same companies. Exactly. MSO (Cable) & Telco ISPs that offer video products are already prioritizing their own VoD (Video-on-Demand) offerings over data to ensure QoS (quality of service). Whether by over-provisioning the virtual circuits to their customers, not amortizing the data consumed against a hard or soft cap limit, or directly peering the VoD servers with the edge routers, ISP video gets the priority because that is where the big profits are. There is no value proposition for BIG ISP to provide free peering with their competition.
- mindslight 12y ago
  It should also be noted, that this makes perfect sense with regards to the way the telcos see the world - selling discrete well-provisioned services. This is the classic datagrams versus circuits battle, still burning strong decades letter. And of course that's because this is where the money is - differentiated services lead to price discrimination and high profit margins, while commodity bits are a highly competitive race to the bottom. And as computing power keeps dropping in price, they both require ever-similar infrastructure buildout (contrary to "End-to-End Arguments in System Design")
Silhouette 12y ago
I believe the core problem here is that ISPs and infrastructure are owned by the same companies. Based on evidence from other countries, like Japan, these problems would largely go away if it was illegal to own both the infrastructure and provide service to customers. That is certainly an idea worth exploring, but I'm not sure it's an automatic win. We could consider European railway networks as a somewhat analogous situation. In several countries, one business or public entity owns and maintains the tracks and related infrastructure, while one or more others own and operate the trains themselves. We have a better service here in the UK today with that model than we used to with the nationalised all-in British Rail, in some respects at least. On the other hand, the costs of that system are crazy, both in ticket prices and government subsidy, so it's far from clear whether the improvements have come because of the split in responsibilities or despite it. We're not the only ones whose system doesn't always work, though. Every now and then, you see a real howler due to miscommunication, as IIRC the French had recently when it turned out that the super new trains wouldn't be able to fit next to the platforms at a load of older stations. It seems to me that the main problem with ISPs in the US is not so much being both infrastructure provider and service provider as it is having little if any real competition on either count. Rather like the banking system, the US appears to be maybe a decade behind most of the developed world in this respect, for no particularly good reason. I can only assume it's a consequence of politics and/or questionable business environment.
- dasil003 12y ago
  > as IIRC the French had recently when it turned out that the super new trains wouldn't be able to fit next to the platforms at a load of older stations. So they made it through the provisioning process, did they make it all the way to a... test run? :)
  - demallien 12y ago
    Nahhh, it was a non-story actually. The company making the new trains had actually gone out and measured the stations before designing the trains. They had then notified the entity responsible for the stations, letting them know that the stations would need to be reworked. Work has actually already started on some stations, but is running behind schedule and not all stations will be ready when the resins come on line. This entity has tried to blame their scheduling mismanagement on the train manufacturer, but as there are written agreements to do the work on the stations, that dig won't hunt.
manicdee 12y ago
Just make sure you do it properly the first time, and don't trust the telcos when they tell you they'll "self regulate". Otherwise you'll end up with the mess that Australia has, which led to the previous Government setting up the NBN project. Not only that, but any time a retail ISP submits complaints about a customer's service, Telstra calls the customer directly and tells them that their problems will go away if they subscribe to a Telstra plan (and the problems do go away, strangely enough). So make sure there is a proper separation of the infrastructure and retail portions of the telco behemoth right from day 1. Otherwise you'll be dealing with a situation that is worse than what you have now.
- voltagex_ 12y ago
  Don't worry, the current government will make the situation so bad that America's telcos will look like the gold standard by comparison. It's really strange. We're quite far ahead with mobile/cell/wireless coverage and plans but very very far behind in high-speed broadband.

by Osiris 12y ago

ep103 12y ago

yes, that would probably work, but they have such a huge influence on washington that at the moment we're having a hard time even keeping net neutrality alive.http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=1xne7 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=1xne7

danielweber 12y ago

So the DSL infrastructure?

seynb 12y ago
>So the DSL infrastructure? It's not so much about the last mile anymore. Since most customers want bundled voice/data/video, it's about linear video channels and that means content. The big players are always going to have more clout in negotiating the best rates for their bundled channels because they have the most subs (subscribers). Even if FCC mandated unbundling of the CableCos' HFC plant and the Telcos' FTTx plant, no one will be able to compete with the big boys on content. Also, alot of these plants were not designed for interoperability with other vendors' equipment and troubleshooting would be difficult to impossible. It's no longer as simple as a 2-wire local loop (twisted pair) that you can break out from a split bank to your own frame and DSLAM. The technologies share the same physical media -- think bus topology like a token ring. One faulty ONT in a B-PON or G-PON network can impact service for ~30 customers. What the FCC could do is mandate the reselling of data services like UNE-P with POTS, and the reseller (e.g. Netflix) could then bundle their own pure VoD product for video over the carrier's data platform So, deregulation (unbundling - platform) is one option. Otherwise, there would have to be a mandated and fair policy for exchange data between ISPs either at free or at tariffed rates across the board, just like voice trunks. Data is the new voice and the FCC needs to weigh in and start (de)/regulating or this is what the internet is going to look like 10 years from now. a.pomf.se/qtkuqv.jpg
- danielweber 12y ago
  That JPG is one of the worst arguments on the Internet. It's popular because it works up the rage of "this might happen" netizens, but "might" has been reduced to "doesn't violate the laws of physics."
  - seynb 12y ago
    But, it's not just FUD. https://secure.dslreports.com/forum/r20614148- https://secure.dslreports.com/forum/r20614148- Taxpayer subsidies helped build the telco network, not dime one of which has been repaid. Meanwhile, they https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Study-We-Should-Kill-Copper-Since-Youre-Not-Using-It-126145 https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Study-We-Should-K... rip out the copper because it's no longer as profitable (as a regulated service) as video and wireless. Cablecos that have a captive market raise their rates as much as their consumer base will bear. As soon as carriers can find a way to monetize something, they won't stop. Value-added services, fees, rate-hikes. It's rent-seeking behavior, like the railroad tycoons. Cable & telco greed is practically a law of physics. That's why we have regulated service for electricity and telephone, because we recognize how essential it is to modern life. And it should be no different for internet.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      Even if I bought all your negative emotions about ISPs[1], none of your scare scenarios are at all about the ISP charging more money to the customer depending on what websites they go to.[2] Even right now, with whatever asshattery Verizon is doing, they haven't even peeped one single word about making the customers of theirs that use Netflix pay more money to Verizon. "These people do bad things, so you should believe these other bad things I say they might someday do." Lots of people have made very good careers out of enraging the rabble that way. [1] Your first link uses a bunch of Google searches as evidence, so I can't be 100% sure what it's talking about. But there's a decent chance it's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709910 forex [2] The second article is about AT&T wanting to get the hell out of the wired communication business. Investors hate the wired business. One way or another you have to pay for that infrastructure, and talking about applying utility-level regulation to the companies eager to leave is not going to draw in new dollars.

seynb 12y ago

>I believe the core problem here is that ISPs and infrastructure are owned by the same companies. Exactly. MSO (Cable) & Telco ISPs that offer video products are already prioritizing their own VoD (Video-on-Demand) offerings over data to ensure QoS (quality of service). Whether by over-provisioning the virtual circuits to their customers, not amortizing the data consumed against a hard or soft cap limit, or directly peering the VoD servers with the edge routers, ISP video gets the priority because that is where the big profits are. There is no value proposition for BIG ISP to provide free peering with their competition.

mindslight 12y ago
It should also be noted, that this makes perfect sense with regards to the way the telcos see the world - selling discrete well-provisioned services. This is the classic datagrams versus circuits battle, still burning strong decades letter. And of course that's because this is where the money is - differentiated services lead to price discrimination and high profit margins, while commodity bits are a highly competitive race to the bottom. And as computing power keeps dropping in price, they both require ever-similar infrastructure buildout (contrary to "End-to-End Arguments in System Design")

Silhouette 12y ago

I believe the core problem here is that ISPs and infrastructure are owned by the same companies. Based on evidence from other countries, like Japan, these problems would largely go away if it was illegal to own both the infrastructure and provide service to customers. That is certainly an idea worth exploring, but I'm not sure it's an automatic win. We could consider European railway networks as a somewhat analogous situation. In several countries, one business or public entity owns and maintains the tracks and related infrastructure, while one or more others own and operate the trains themselves. We have a better service here in the UK today with that model than we used to with the nationalised all-in British Rail, in some respects at least. On the other hand, the costs of that system are crazy, both in ticket prices and government subsidy, so it's far from clear whether the improvements have come because of the split in responsibilities or despite it. We're not the only ones whose system doesn't always work, though. Every now and then, you see a real howler due to miscommunication, as IIRC the French had recently when it turned out that the super new trains wouldn't be able to fit next to the platforms at a load of older stations. It seems to me that the main problem with ISPs in the US is not so much being both infrastructure provider and service provider as it is having little if any real competition on either count. Rather like the banking system, the US appears to be maybe a decade behind most of the developed world in this respect, for no particularly good reason. I can only assume it's a consequence of politics and/or questionable business environment.

dasil003 12y ago
> as IIRC the French had recently when it turned out that the super new trains wouldn't be able to fit next to the platforms at a load of older stations. So they made it through the provisioning process, did they make it all the way to a... test run? :)
- demallien 12y ago
  Nahhh, it was a non-story actually. The company making the new trains had actually gone out and measured the stations before designing the trains. They had then notified the entity responsible for the stations, letting them know that the stations would need to be reworked. Work has actually already started on some stations, but is running behind schedule and not all stations will be ready when the resins come on line. This entity has tried to blame their scheduling mismanagement on the train manufacturer, but as there are written agreements to do the work on the stations, that dig won't hunt.

manicdee 12y ago

Just make sure you do it properly the first time, and don't trust the telcos when they tell you they'll "self regulate". Otherwise you'll end up with the mess that Australia has, which led to the previous Government setting up the NBN project. Not only that, but any time a retail ISP submits complaints about a customer's service, Telstra calls the customer directly and tells them that their problems will go away if they subscribe to a Telstra plan (and the problems do go away, strangely enough). So make sure there is a proper separation of the infrastructure and retail portions of the telco behemoth right from day 1. Otherwise you'll be dealing with a situation that is worse than what you have now.

voltagex_ 12y ago
Don't worry, the current government will make the situation so bad that America's telcos will look like the gold standard by comparison. It's really strange. We're quite far ahead with mobile/cell/wireless coverage and plans but very very far behind in high-speed broadband.