From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bosmailout07.eigbox.net (bosmailout07.eigbox.net [66.96.185.7]) (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 DD8F23B2A4 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 15:44:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bosmailscan07.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.7]) by bosmailout07.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1qnlKB-0003OB-DC for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 15:44:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alum.mit.edu; s=dkim; h=Sender:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=29Fu7nyyOGMMc6doVpjRNHx73lIjaKCXDc51GjpSSeY=; b=E9YDoB9FSqRWRItczYsLbqDHx1 e5eDJ79smWPHKUlnJd4gJt3Mvm3rDzjMdGjk+9Vb8to7weF9uNPCywtSihMZfOF7DJz1SM9PbgJam hy52NXwkaZotkbweLpS2w7HItZ7R1Y68tGJc9aC7p3JY7X8lpAPJmBY82hERYki2ePICEL+8Em0GB t3N3YCyNzcXUrLEAGigc3643RZetSeLWcXcux93SpwhXFz6qCkKMu65a5rk3geSxgqm0A3DzfsiJF lOu/aBW7X1oO+dFq45mtY6Fg20njVJfshJjA1eFsOXkwJem26nmv1ta90Pexvt5QpNzXZi8KkKNL1 1EXiz2TA==; Received: from [10.115.3.32] (helo=bosimpout12) by bosmailscan07.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1qnlKB-0004LG-3j for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 15:44:55 -0400 Received: from bosauthsmtp07.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.7]) by bosimpout12 with id tXkr2A00D099BUA01Xku4s; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 15:44:55 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=d4VuNSrE c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=x8qw8EAkfcRkIpZA8Q87Bg==:117 a=tKttg/DTfI8zZz0UFxdR5w==:17 a=bhdUkHdE2iEA:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=kurRqvosAAAA:8 a=jU4qhlNgAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=usUTcz4nAAAA:8 a=aWAeYEFSAAAA:8 a=1OiLY5TJvfdCLAJdjFUA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=SqrS4YbrsuUA:10 a=K4UMiLK40VEA:10 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=SFWeNeTrMilPqIYiO2kA:9 a=znJcONkfWEtDQaM7:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=kbxRQ_lfPIoQnHsAj2-A:22 a=MqnEBYhnR1GEXjMu-uAJ:22 a=r3NYatTVveRv6U44697V:22 Received: from c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([73.158.253.41]:57773 helo=SRA6) by bosauthsmtp07.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1qnlK7-0003yR-BR; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 15:44:51 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Dick Roy" To: =?utf-8?Q?'Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let?= =?utf-8?Q?=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_he?= =?utf-8?Q?ard_this_time!'?= , "'rjmcmahon'" References: <6D7F7242-248B-4FD4-BEDA-EE931B7DFE3C@andyring.com> <0a158308-e0c1-4722-8013-745e3ded232d@app.fastmail.com> <1B7534EB-2FCE-4500-B53D-F1DFEED1DBC7@gmx.de> <8dbe2688ccf5b9e976a03e8e4f36fb4d@rjmcmahon.com> <9E96A830-CE03-44FC-925B-77896FD6976E@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 12:44:46 -0700 Organization: SRA Message-ID: <8389B1784DFE42009E77D524A88D82C5@SRA6> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0152_01D9F5F7.6696DAF0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Adn2JOLk5zqaoH/IRm+pODFbQn42PAADEDQA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE X-EN-UserInfo: f809475445fb8041985048e338e1a001:931c98230c6409dcc37fa7e93b490c27 X-EN-AuthUser: dickroy@intellicommunications.com Sender: "Dick Roy" X-EN-OrigIP: 73.158.253.41 X-EN-OrigHost: c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 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 19:44:55 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0152_01D9F5F7.6696DAF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 _____ =20 From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf = Of Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11:10 AM To: Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects = heard this time!; rjmcmahon Cc: Frantisek Borsik Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors =20 Bob - "beyond FWA which is limited by physics and is energy inefficient, = a net negative to climate mitigations" - why FWA should be energy = inefficient and net negative to climate mitigation? =20 I know that I'm drifting this conversation off again, but I strongly = disagree with this statement. [RR] If by =E2=80=9Cthis statement=E2=80=9D you mean the claim that FWA = is energy inefficient compared to ANY =E2=80=9Cwired=E2=80=9D = connection, the laws of physics are clear. Any energy sent that is NOT = received is lost, and FWA =E2=80=9Closes=E2=80=9D orders of magnitude = more energy than any communication medium that confines the energy to = flow between a transmitter and a receiver. Therein, only radiative and = resistive loses matter, and they are again orders of magnitude less than = RF trasmissions trough the atmosphere. The path-loss models for both = types of media can be used to quantify the differences! :-) =20 RR=20 =20 All the best, =20 Frank Frantisek (Frank) Borsik =20 = https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714=20 iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 Skype: casioa5302ca frantisek.borsik@gmail.com =20 =20 On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:55=E2=80=AFPM Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain = wrote: Hi Bob, > On Oct 3, 2023, at 18:54, rjmcmahon wrote: >=20 > Natural monopolies are things with high sunk costs. Things with high = sunk costs don't necessarily exist (like electrified roads) even though = they add huge value to society and can help curb climate impacts. A = natural monopoly exists unrelated to a provider already having an = infrastructure in place per that monopoly. >=20 > Fiber with up gradable optics to hundreds of millions of buildings = that can leverage the NRE from data centers are natural monopolies and = don't really exist in most places, even though they are critical to = mitigating climate impact. >=20 > The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the U.S. was = pushed in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out. [SM] I only monitored this cursory (not living in the US any = longer), but I seem to recall quite a number of questionable plays = against municipal ownership by the existing ISPs; I would book this as = "never really tried", and not as we gave it an honest try but it fell = short. That said many municipalities (in many parts of the world) are = hardly in the shape required to built new costly infrastructure as they = are having troubles maintaining the infrastructure on their hands with = the available funds. > The primary companies that invested in access networks were the cable = cos and they redid it for HFC in 2000s (along with some roll ups.) They = are likely the only U.S. companies that will upgrade again (beyond FWA = which is limited by physics and is energy inefficient, a net negative to = climate mitigations.) >=20 > The U.S. railroads were natural monopolies. They were given massive = land grants to build out. They ran as private companies for about one = century. They lost their monopoly position after third generations who = inherited them used these monopolies to price guoge government during = WWI and WWII. That's part of the reason most DoT type govt agencies = today are "roads & airports" vs "roads, rail & airports." Rail has been = re privatized and under invested - perfect for Warren Buffett but no so = good for everyone else nor for the climate. >=20 > Governments will respond to monopoly abuse after it occurs, not = before. [SM] Indeed, that is often the case... > First, the infrastructure needs massive funding to be installed, = however that can get done. Municipal revenue bonds & networks sound nice = in theory but haven't worked over the last two decades. Time to try = something different. [SM] Again I argue that has not really been tried, but unless = there is going to be a big change in DC it is not going ot be tried for = real in the future either, so in essence we might agree ;) Regards Sebastian >=20 > Bob >=20 > = https://www.electrichybridvehicletechnology.com/news/charging-technology/= us-to-build-its-first-ever-electric-road-that-wirelessly-charges-evs-as-t= hey-drive.html >=20 >> Hi Colin, >>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain = wrote: >>> 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? >>> 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). >>> 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. >> 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. >>> 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 >>> Cheers, >>> Colin Higbie >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 _______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain ------=_NextPart_000_0152_01D9F5F7.6696DAF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

 

From: = Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, = 2023 11:10 AM
To: Network Neutrality is = back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects heard this time!; rjmcmahon
Cc: Frantisek Borsik
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

 

Bob - "beyond FWA = which is limited by physics and = is energy inefficient, a net negative to climate mitigations"= - why FWA should be energy inefficient and net negative to climate = mitigation?

 

I know that I'm drifting this conversation off again, but I = strongly disagree with this statement.

[RR] If by =E2=80=9Cthis statement=E2=80=9D you mean = the claim that FWA is energy inefficient compared to ANY =E2=80=9Cwired=E2=80=9D connection, = the laws of physics are clear. =C2=A0Any energy sent that is NOT received is lost, and FWA = =E2=80=9Closes=E2=80=9D orders of magnitude more energy than any communication medium that confines the = energy to flow between a transmitter and a receiver. =C2=A0Therein, only radiative = and resistive loses matter, and they are again orders of magnitude less than = RF trasmissions trough the atmosphere.=C2=A0 The path-loss models for both = types of media can be used to quantify the differences! = J<= /i><= /i>

 

RR

 


All the best,

 

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: = +421919416714 

iMessage, mobile: = +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com=

 

 

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:55=E2=80=AFPM Sebastian Moeller via = Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.n= et> wrote:

Hi Bob,


> On Oct 3, 2023, at 18:54, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>
> Natural monopolies are things with high sunk costs. Things with = high sunk costs don't necessarily exist (like electrified roads) even though they = add huge value to society and can help curb climate impacts. A natural = monopoly exists unrelated to a provider already having an infrastructure in place = per that monopoly.
>
> Fiber with up gradable optics to hundreds of millions of buildings = that can leverage the NRE from data centers are natural monopolies and don't = really exist in most places, even though they are critical to mitigating = climate impact.
>
> The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the = U.S. = was pushed in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out.

        [SM] I only monitored this cursory (not = living in the US any longer), but I seem to recall quite a number of questionable = plays against municipal ownership by the existing ISPs; I would book this as "never really tried", and not as we gave it an honest try but = it fell short. That said many municipalities (in many parts of the world) are = hardly in the shape required to built new costly infrastructure as they are having troubles maintaining the infrastructure on their hands with the = available funds.

> The primary companies that invested in access networks were the = cable cos and they redid it for HFC in 2000s (along with some roll ups.) They are = likely the only U.S. companies that will upgrade again (beyond FWA which is limited by = physics and is energy inefficient, a net negative to climate mitigations.)
>
> The U.S. railroads were natural monopolies. They were given massive land grants = to build out. They ran as private companies for about one century. They lost = their monopoly position after third generations who inherited them used these monopolies to price guoge government during WWI and WWII. That's part of = the reason most DoT type govt agencies today are "roads & = airports" vs "roads, rail & airports." Rail has been re privatized = and under invested - perfect for Warren Buffett but no so good for everyone = else nor for the climate.
>
> Governments will respond to monopoly abuse after it occurs, not = before.

        [SM] Indeed, that is often the case...

> First, the infrastructure needs massive funding to be installed, = however that can get done. Municipal revenue bonds & networks sound nice in = theory but haven't worked over the last two decades. Time to try something = different.

        [SM] Again I argue that has not really been = tried, but unless there is going to be a big change in DC it is not going ot be = tried for real in the future either, so in essence we might agree ;)

Regards
        Sebastian

>
> Bob
>
> https://www.electrichybridvehicletechnology.com/news/ch= arging-technology/us-to-build-its-first-ever-electric-road-that-wirelessl= y-charges-evs-as-they-drive.html
>
>> Hi Colin,
>>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 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?
>>> 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).
>>> 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.
>> 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.
>>> 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
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin Higbie
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain=

------=_NextPart_000_0152_01D9F5F7.6696DAF0--