[NNagain] Small ISP Carve Out

[NNagain] Small ISP Carve Out

[Livingood, Jason]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

“Small Broadband Providers Urge FCC to Leave Them Out of Some Net Neutrality Rules” See https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/10/small-broadband-providers-urge-fcc-to-leave-them-out-of-some-net-neutrality-rules/. My personal opinion is any rules should apply to all providers. After all, my locally-owned small car mechanic does not get to opt out of EPA rules for used motor oil disposal since they are small and have 4 employees and small organic farms don’t get to opt out of food safety rules or labeling.

JL



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2430 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] Small ISP Carve Out

[Jeremy Austin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2143 bytes --]

IMO the argument in seeking additional forbearance is that if all ISPs, no
matter the size, have a similar minimum burden of regulatory filing and
that burden is large, it acts as a barrier to entry. In a perfect world the
rules can apply to all sizes of ISPs *and* not be burdensome.

To keep this on topic, why is Title II (the burden WISPA rejects, not
necessarily the Net Neutrality goals TII espouses) the only way to achieve
NN?

On a related note, I observe that neither WISPA nor NTCA have weighed in on
neutrality per se. When I spoke to David Zumwalt last week in Vegas
(current WISPA President/CEO) he was surprised to hear that there are ISPs
and vendors active in the wireless and small fiber provider markets that
are actively advocating for, selling and deploying non-net-neutral traffic
management solutions. Perhaps WISPA is avoiding taking a stance on pure NN
ideals.

$boilerplate not necessarily the opinions of my employer and/or ancestors,
Jeremy

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 6:45 AM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> “Small Broadband Providers Urge FCC to Leave Them Out of Some Net
> Neutrality Rules” See
> https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/10/small-broadband-providers-urge-fcc-to-leave-them-out-of-some-net-neutrality-rules/.
> My personal opinion is any rules should apply to all providers. After all,
> my locally-owned small car mechanic does not get to opt out of EPA rules
> for used motor oil disposal since they are small and have 4 employees and
> small organic farms don’t get to opt out of food safety rules or labeling.
>
>
>
> JL
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>


-- 
--
Jeremy Austin
Sr. Product Manager
Preseem | Aterlo Networks
preseem.com

Book a Call: https://app.hubspot.com/meetings/jeremy548
Phone: 1-833-733-7336 x718
Email: jeremy@preseem.com

Stay Connected with Newsletters & More:
*https://preseem.com/stay-connected/* <https://preseem.com/stay-connected/>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4339 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] Small ISP Carve Out

[Spencer Sevilla]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4793 bytes --]

Yeah, I’m split on this. I do generally like the take of “laws for ISPs should apply equally to all ISPs” but two valid and very different reasons immediately came to mind for taking size into account.

1: Performance. I’ve supported some *very* backhaul constrained networks, and you quickly start looking for any possible way to improve the customer experience, even if it means prioritizing popular sites or traffic flows over others. Prioritizing common stuff (like WhatsApp and Youtube in our case) is a concrete way to make people happier, even if it kills you inside. This relates closely to your lower paragraph and (perhaps) WISPA’s silence.

2: Monopolistic concerns. As ISPs get larger, so does their ability to exert pressure on other markets. The Comcast-Netflix shakedown way back in the day immediately comes to mind as an example. If regulators want to curb this behavior, then really they only need to be looking at the players big enough to do that.

Maybe Netflix (or other big content drivers) could almost serve as a bellwether here. In the first example, I know some small ISPs that literally go out of their way to prioritize Netflix traffic, whereas in the second it’s the opposite. If we were to divide ISPs into “small” and “big” for this purpose (obviously a hard exercise), a convenient line in the sand would be “are you shaking websites down or is it going the other way?”

Obviously these two contexts/lenses are quite different, and kinda reduce to a more abstract question. Are the regulator's goals related to performance? Consumer protection? Antitrust? Ideology? Politics?

When it comes to my own personal values, I’m not worried about case #1 because it’s simply an optimization that chases popular content and doesn’t really drive change at scale, whereas a hypothetical Tier 1 ISP could absolutely be able to strike a backdoor deal and hamstring one content provider in favor of another. I suppose another reframing of the above question would be, if consumers notice a content website is struggling, is their first thought “wow, $localisp sucks, I should go back to $majorisp” or is it “wow, $contentprovider is really struggling, we should watch something else tonight.”

> On Oct 17, 2023, at 09:42, Jeremy Austin via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> IMO the argument in seeking additional forbearance is that if all ISPs, no matter the size, have a similar minimum burden of regulatory filing and that burden is large, it acts as a barrier to entry. In a perfect world the rules can apply to all sizes of ISPs *and* not be burdensome.
> 
> To keep this on topic, why is Title II (the burden WISPA rejects, not necessarily the Net Neutrality goals TII espouses) the only way to achieve NN?
> 
> On a related note, I observe that neither WISPA nor NTCA have weighed in on neutrality per se. When I spoke to David Zumwalt last week in Vegas (current WISPA President/CEO) he was surprised to hear that there are ISPs and vendors active in the wireless and small fiber provider markets that are actively advocating for, selling and deploying non-net-neutral traffic management solutions. Perhaps WISPA is avoiding taking a stance on pure NN ideals.
> 
> $boilerplate not necessarily the opinions of my employer and/or ancestors,
> Jeremy
> 
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 6:45 AM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> “Small Broadband Providers Urge FCC to Leave Them Out of Some Net Neutrality Rules” See https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/10/small-broadband-providers-urge-fcc-to-leave-them-out-of-some-net-neutrality-rules/. My personal opinion is any rules should apply to all providers. After all, my locally-owned small car mechanic does not get to opt out of EPA rules for used motor oil disposal since they are small and have 4 employees and small organic farms don’t get to opt out of food safety rules or labeling.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> JL
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Jeremy Austin
> Sr. Product Manager
> Preseem | Aterlo Networks
> preseem.com <http://preseem.com/>
> 
> Book a Call: https://app.hubspot.com/meetings/jeremy548
> Phone: 1-833-733-7336 x718
> Email: jeremy@preseem.com <mailto:jeremy@preseem.com>
> 
> Stay Connected with Newsletters & More: https://preseem.com/stay-connected/
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7329 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] Small ISP Carve Out

[le berger des photons]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1438 bytes --]

but an ISP and its clients should be able to agree together on anything
which they feel works for them.  The only rule that I see that should apply
is that there should be proper disclosure.  This rule already exists.  It
is contract law.  All of this regulation would make it impossible for an
Isp  and its customers to do something that they all WANT to do.

That would be like them deciding to dump their waste oil all over the
ground IF they had their own planet.  Though that would be perhaps stupid,
all of the affected people agree to it,  they should be able to do it.
It's THEIR planet!

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:45 PM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> “Small Broadband Providers Urge FCC to Leave Them Out of Some Net
> Neutrality Rules” See
> https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/10/small-broadband-providers-urge-fcc-to-leave-them-out-of-some-net-neutrality-rules/.
> My personal opinion is any rules should apply to all providers. After all,
> my locally-owned small car mechanic does not get to opt out of EPA rules
> for used motor oil disposal since they are small and have 4 employees and
> small organic farms don’t get to opt out of food safety rules or labeling.
>
>
>
> JL
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2616 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] Small ISP Carve Out

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Mr. Photons

> On Oct 18, 2023, at 09:08, le berger des photons via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> but an ISP and its clients should be able to agree together on anything which they feel works for them.  The only rule that I see that should apply is that there should be proper disclosure.  This rule already exists.  It is contract law.  All of this regulation would make it impossible for an Isp  and its customers to do something that they all WANT to do. 

	[SM] At the heart of the NN dispute is, that some ISPs clearly did something only they wanted to do and which their customers disagreed with. This does not apply to all ISPs and all customers, but there clearly was abuse and hence reactive regulation... if the market players do not behave well enough by themselves, they risk the referee stepping in, so business as usual.


> 
> That would be like them deciding to dump their waste oil all over the ground IF they had their own planet.  Though that would be perhaps stupid,  all of the affected people agree to it,  they should be able to do it.  It's THEIR planet!

	[SM] This approach might work for agreements between equal partners, but history/experience shows that if one side has considerably more leverage it is likely to abuse that leverage. There is a reason why most human societies implement some "fairness" rules and try to enforce those. (Often "fairness" is restricted to small subsets of the population, but still the principle itself seems universal or terran).

Regards
	Sebastian



> 
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:45 PM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> “Small Broadband Providers Urge FCC to Leave Them Out of Some Net Neutrality Rules” See https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/10/small-broadband-providers-urge-fcc-to-leave-them-out-of-some-net-neutrality-rules/. My personal opinion is any rules should apply to all providers. After all, my locally-owned small car mechanic does not get to opt out of EPA rules for used motor oil disposal since they are small and have 4 employees and small organic farms don’t get to opt out of food safety rules or labeling.
> 
>  
> 
> JL
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain