From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sender4-zs8.zoho.com (sender4-zs8.zoho.com [136.143.188.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C14F3B2A4 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 19:17:16 -0400 (EDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1696375032; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=KALf57TZl+O6P5eGDsEth4JuSVX2Ud5PeG6/AzwTsAPurAjPRLx3QdvD1n9RT/i1ediMJ2N1hpEUlndff3M9a1ym3IBftihL6+WzCKBrvKG8TAi03DwHs24mR9oAUQwxmgf0sLPZUuHQw3UM2x//NASQkpDWvZcX69AXUFc+OXA= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1696375032; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=HcH42wch4qcOLZHKudBJAG3UiiVA1ZG4Z91YBehtkp8=; b=npu6i8gddSC/YnMuEdBKwALdNqmYWFI8GrXTHTq/L5EIJtUUKtDh5v3CtruNrifs3f4P/egcAZS0VeJp7jPi3QAU2+BAvnc7hex9rZ4u9YNkeV0QeeR5syJFbEKVXR3T5wlV+ZnibZzLtBv3gX9XvM4rGtHHhgDWJbFXGuxTyBA= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=phillywisper.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mjs@phillywisper.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1696375032; s=mail; d=phillywisper.net; i=mjs@phillywisper.net; h=Date:Date:From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=HcH42wch4qcOLZHKudBJAG3UiiVA1ZG4Z91YBehtkp8=; b=GrR3Gdg+IQoes7azm9ZfYFG1QKlE9UfYV2yyqiYrg+8s05AxKeR2yw00R9zQ2p6z fea6TCqBJkUADN6GPLi66nxjWy35y2Jf0e88KnBQ6WA3TWS51EpkLUgf6Cql/6+CJaO MGs70HMGqdg9s7dPdfp4FjLMSbCHMLBKRpptpEPE= Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 1696375031174505.90578835569397; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 16:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2023 19:17:11 -0400 From: Mark Steckel To: =?UTF-8?Q?=22Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make?= =?UTF-8?Q?_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!=22?= Message-ID: <18af7d4c568.b73ffaa01244760.8240978906967327872@phillywisper.net> In-Reply-To: References: <6D7F7242-248B-4FD4-BEDA-EE931B7DFE3C@andyring.com> <0a158308-e0c1-4722-8013-745e3ded232d@app.fastmail.com> <1B7534EB-2FCE-4500-B53D-F1DFEED1DBC7@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Importance: Medium User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2023 23:17:16 -0000 ---- On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 16:26:24 -0400 Colin_Higbie via Nnagain wrote -= --=20 [snip...] > There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, b= ut history shows that in the long run, government interference in the form = of controlling regulations on what business may and may not do with each ot= her, outside matters of public safety and perhaps establishing and mandatin= g some measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation. That in tu= rn hurts consumers in the end.=20 I disagree with this on two dimensions: 1) There are multiple ways to evalute outcomes and while innovation is impo= rtant, it is not the only one to optimize for. What is best for the public = may by necessity limit some forms of innovation. Wall Street has been "inno= vating" like crazy over the last 40+ years which has been extremely good fo= r them, but not so much for the public. 2) Antitrust law traditionally focused on the concentration of market power= . Laws and regulations to minimize market consolidation and abuse of econom= ic choke points is a good thing IMO.=20 Over the last 40+ years, the original antitrust approach, thinking and enfo= rcement switched to "consumer benefit" which focuses primarily on pricing t= o purchasers while largely ignoring market consolidation and power. This po= licy changed also impacted and expanded the range of permitted company merg= ers and acquisitions. If AT&T was not allowed to by Time-Warner, or Comcast= to buy NBC, et al, the need to worry about ISPs self-dealing would be much= less of an issue. An example - The pharmaceutical industry prefers to innovate treatments ove= r cures. Treatments generate recurring revenue, while cures generate a one = time payment. What is best for the pharmaceutical industry is not always wh= at is best for the public and human welfare. [snip...] >=20 > Cheers, > Colin >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Sebastian Moeller moeller0@gmx.de>=20 > Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM > To: Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects he= ard this time! nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> > Cc: Colin_Higbie CHigbie1@Higbie.name> > Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors >=20 > Hi Colin, >=20 > > On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain nnagain@lists.buffe= rbloat.net> wrote: > >=20 > > While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or= work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that i= nto commercially viable products and services is the result of profit incen= tives. A company won=E2=80=99t invest in doing something new with attendant= risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the = alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some oth= er product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful ab= out regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use o= f potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see th= e Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything= resembling NN regulation. >=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[SM] At its core NN regulations really just say = that who is selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly that= and not try to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be i= nsufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not discrimina= te" directive really restricts the space of potential innovations in any me= aningful way. >=20 >=20 > > The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion beca= use future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations w= e can conceive of today. >=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially pred= ictions about the future ;) >=20 >=20 > > It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or = penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially ba= d, it=E2=80=99s an important part of the very competition that drives innov= ation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had bee= n willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest o= f the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wante= d to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to th= ose customers. >=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not hav= e been meaningful internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link= has more general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that g= ate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be without iss= ues) >=20 >=20 > > Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then cons= idered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user. >=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting= even though >=3D 1 Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as = I can see it we still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that = go above simple "more parallel" or "faster". >=20 >=20 > > Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of= NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned signific= ant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the = board. >=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[SM] This is purely speculative though, it might= as well had shown nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber= roll-out was so small as to be not representative of anything, no? >=20 > > =20 > > I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies alrea= dy break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companie= s, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree w= ith that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terr= ible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those m= onopolies, and they don=E2=80=99t want to risk that). > > =20 > > Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or priorit= ize data, whether by content or protocol =E2=80=93 which they should be all= owed to do, EVEN WHEN IT=E2=80=99S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS =E2=80=93 but, at leas= t referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put = federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this = is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it = may take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, t= hey can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company nego= tiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would= personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, b= ut then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing f= irms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines. >=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[SM] The problem is that access networks often a= re not legal monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a hi= gh-speed capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for = other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can torpedo suc= h a deployment by lowering prices such that too few customers change to mak= e the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for a long time). So leaving th= e access network to market players will always result in the incentive to m= onetize the gate-keeper role that is inherent in the network's structure.= =20 > One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access net= work into the public hands, like other important infrastructure. The idea w= ould then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other places to have a lo= cal access network provider that in turn "concentrates" access links in COs= local IXs where interested ISPs con connect to and then offer all end-user= s in that access network internet access services. That still leaves the na= tural monopoly of the access network untouched, but puts it under managemen= t of en entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private enti= ties are). > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN c= oncerns, and I am sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be o= perating a small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my= access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would operate a= big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is ver end-user c= entric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local government) >=20 >=20 > > This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year = monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and = showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We = deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided t= he inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for s= omething like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access. > > =20 > > In short, with ISP=E2=80=99s the open-ended government protected monop= olies are the problem, >=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies = where nobody else is permitted to build a competing network, but natural mo= nopolies where the expected return of investment falls with the number of a= lready existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of = ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is still= so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an oligopoly = situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does not really delive= r on its promises. >=20 >=20 > > not the providers=E2=80=99 ability to overcharge customers or prioriti= ze some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as c= ompetition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it thro= ugh regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to f= uture innovation. >=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but= IMHO an oligopoly likely would not result in meaningful enough competition= . This is where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes = the cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only need= to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs the= re (depending) on the local network tech, and can start offer services, wit= hout having to deal with the access network. >=20 > > Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based= Internet is another. >=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulatio= ns, neither depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no? >=20 >=20 > > Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under d= ifferent terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because they= =E2=80=99re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is= the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovatio= ns, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations. >=20 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0[SM] I claim that rules and regulations always s= et the stage for which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and whi= ch are not, that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, = so I really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future= expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active dis= crimination, but in that case I see no real loss). >=20 > Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most N= N rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not the IS= P. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize vide confere= ncing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load" option offered b= y their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little, as long as the end u= ser can toggle this option at will it will not be subject to NN regulations= as far as I understand. This clearly leaves some innovation space availabl= e even for active discrimination. >=20 > Regards > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Sebastian >=20 >=20 > > =20 > > Cheers, > > Colin Higbie > > =20 > > _______________________________________________ > > Nnagain mailing list > > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >=20