From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (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 737013CB37 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 03:50:23 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696319419; x=1696924219; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=b/MvuqxysJ5mHPLRSA6Mx0dsT7NZRQbdf5mpmFuhevM=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=eje5l422ZjOQKy+RCYaX9+Syawbzl717yNcZUj++aqxv7ZVMWP0aHh9xTsDA72nlt+BljXeRib+ QNEeJJUH48z7BtdPga7853un5ZR2yxAxUw1v6cyJqLOVJcbyUMO6H7c3TjRg4ym5OBxqjgOQynm8p 0Kn21Phg8sPMJv+mY7wa5cmX7yJXjp2IygSK8sHhaeHCfhiGtI4jq6qJQnJRj9YyzrRxg2TjdrXRx DrPIKd62JTO6iK9Hm2Y6p80MzJ+YJm/Pxo6QMup7sJWSj5rJ1kjm+UQI3w4FpzSQzagSed9uMfQNx LlQxfr+wLrjObQk2OVlnbpeq+rBUKezxJ9sw== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([95.116.82.136]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MVeI8-1rF2fm3y2G-00RVXn; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 09:50:19 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 09:50:18 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1B7534EB-2FCE-4500-B53D-F1DFEED1DBC7@gmx.de> References: <6D7F7242-248B-4FD4-BEDA-EE931B7DFE3C@andyring.com> <0a158308-e0c1-4722-8013-745e3ded232d@app.fastmail.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:+OII/fwYri8YCbyb0N46KMI942EjmOHe7GUy2TdLlyGAIG/aopP l1rF5FrioAAgefEcCznAf+JUNXa96yxWuJm6tiF5F2Pu4HGXb/KZ1c+Lkqihcr0KyZkd+tx MbleIoqAG0feiW8s3OtrWzHt1dW0OhJFbhVIcRHbSqr/+0QYPXe8buofcapTGbjZvTd489s AZw9lQgrksITXJn5+WC8Q== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:W7lPCjrPqVo=;fknYFuDG/D4rR9JB/Gl6DY4HZfs wHdd6yVVFLyaPa+2mrbxGDAd+Qp8I/4ccKd7k12k9kTctgOZ1ZhnzOZ9E4ebK0AguNGj+1Pkc cf2B/QM1bS7M+F1+vVP5AyEsUD5YrKdcOq2XL8JllV8oTu4C+lh2aYj0TjRu08+jDIXIF8nZ5 Z8Und/GhQqDl3fPjcRXkv+qtK6snpRTvQz2xEZdXtX5kACTxeFIj3XbwHBgRgbWeKXWmqTFak 5QQ1nS9aNFQWRsp0Cm1quAa3Z7VzkiI/mHMv+Hfi1uvlSvRk1rn3kPczSwMQEqQtUevNclrLo J3lPBBSLsSMjq43Mp8hR6xiXFJCdPGneETSealVXOp9GuA08PpzPZFsH+3acRv1VEanHQSEgf UUo803hoS7sS6zxbRvFgcn2mpdYDpR3DtRE2wqFZhD3sB19mEW0hP3G7WTfL6I/uXi0lDL4XT O7M6hxl+ChJ2SR5wLdQPaQhZS/kgWQsUHOpzMcp3kai57XyFNHBq3H+1UA8DXuCB/6MMv/LLu EtbhjX91/J+rpJXshOnBVFrxrNxO47mVJ3C/vDOy721JXn9hBrBH5HZvqrUBJORY4X21HYG46 XVMd41RP2BaZfbFpdL2/Sirwi5owLZBABm3BnSy6+V5M0p9+GDeLZ9lLi35jgfou+Wx0hBMrc 2FqAL9HJGqaKMzp5tjrrGgCD0Yvjj1+g7sZxRYUXdNi8p89/If/vhtqJBAhED5e0t1rWQouM3 nAtD4x1ZPsZDLNJG2ntLIfYkJXKxlyicBJNebfReNFJHLmvDoM79cJDS9IBA/Tqa+8ECOVe70 qVdJ0fDN+kFYdLozWVwNjJ8bSwvwJ7yvecnMEMMqvRk87663J4d/lI+tUfugH+0JOMvqXQMYx 17uIwM3Hkm2+yqkzyRUwLMbeTmQbkky5aPUPkBg0uCUgABh+YaQrvrOq0S29dPHqrAmUkZ4nO 5uZjEpUFGNFk7H48ThmtElG4S6I= 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 07:50:23 -0000 Hi Colin, > On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain = 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 = into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit = incentives. 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 other product or service). For that reason, we want to = be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement = innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful business = practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become better over = time and more accessible should want anything resembling NN regulation. [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 = insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not = discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential = innovations in any meaningful way. > The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion = because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical = considerations we can conceive of today. [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about = the future ;) > 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 = bad, it=E2=80=99s an important part of the very competition that drives = innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber = had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of = the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If = Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might = have been a boon to those customers. [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been = meaningful internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has = more general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that = gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be without = issues) > Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then = considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user. [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". > Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of = NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned = significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity = across the board. [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 > I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies = already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable = companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I = largely agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if = they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and = demand breaking those monopolies, and they don=E2=80=99t want to risk = that). > =20 > Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or = prioritize data, whether by content or protocol =E2=80=93 which they = should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT=E2=80=99S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS =E2=80=93= but, at least 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, they can be a function of time to = recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as = part of covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that = they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after = that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, = similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines. [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal = monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed = capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for other = companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can torpedo such a = deployment by lowering prices such that too few customers change to make = the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for a long time). So leaving = the access network to market players will always result in the incentive = to monetize 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 = network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure. The = idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other places to = have a local access network provider that in turn "concentrates" access = links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con connect to and then = offer all end-users in that access network internet access services. = That still leaves the natural monopoly of the access network untouched, = but puts it under management of en entity that is not likely to exploit = this (as fully as private entities are). This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I = am sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating 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 = centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local government) > 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 the inventor makes it public. This is the right = philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, = investment, and access. > =20 > In short, with ISP=E2=80=99s the open-ended government protected = monopolies are the problem, [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody = else is permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies = where the expected return of investment falls with the number of already = 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 deliver on its promises. > not the providers=E2=80=99 ability to overcharge customers or = prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, = as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster = to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term = consequences with respect to future innovation. [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 = there (depending) on the local network tech, and can start offer = services, without having to deal with the access network. > Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based = Internet is another. [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither = depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no? > Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under = different 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 innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition = because of the regulations. [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for = which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which 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 = discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss). Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most = NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not = the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize = vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load" = option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little, = as long as the end user 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 available even for active discrimination. Regards Sebastian > =20 > Cheers, > Colin Higbie > =20 > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain