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 513BF3B2A4 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 13:55:35 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696355731; x=1696960531; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=f4oQYXUIBtfzP1oJ2XWBQ15X+iYQmbR2eIoJIOtdQAg=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=CS+JwEVkNF23yCc0J1PwbJkyEhuNvqiojbuKv5W9iWbZyVmDCWzLBR5u7FNoMPlnWKvPeAJfwiT eV0aXogJPjdz8wXJPrFTI+RA3ggwfb2MzQzeSed4sFY7qG4LDqe45Z5VuMLabXeOsYsg9iBTBmGqC 0pQRQ1rKn49c4+t31rrqMi9bqBni+6s0g9eOpYf+lKmM99K6Nq9ZZac40JxCPBSuX+3rZx9BzZTL5 g4OXv2Y+G6KYKRSCrlBPh+uefCv9oP31bfeCE1rXmNrNYDgS0au2zf2C59s/WKccPzYyRjgQzQT0e bwOqHZzZ8lmFyYzfCZeFbLDRQZQX6VgH2GqA== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.10.29.26]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MpUYu-1rOBu23unM-00prct; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 19:55:30 +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: <8dbe2688ccf5b9e976a03e8e4f36fb4d@rjmcmahon.com> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 19:55:30 +0200 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9E96A830-CE03-44FC-925B-77896FD6976E@gmx.de> 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> To: rjmcmahon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:8K7rlZKxU8iOF9YGGw5phpZTh6R1jT4YAzC0RqH59VLYmNCSHKz IANalApid4vOx+ANZ/ox5+lUyKRQe5SjxFostBU10dkHNmGINyup8+FYwi4SeAQOcIzVR+z /JQ7hLybpOFh/S2aK3nFInPua2+4PWUvBFa5BO63nV2a4Z/u6k9o8HSOWgP6DqYmj17yTIa BGC5R1VlayVr5dLa89atQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:Hv7iZ2HUY6g=;21YNbgY2pO9Y3LvwxpMhBMQG3jP R8aY8BbISPs4PmDpi3XWAWpT1NlbPG6X1pPl19DWqdJy/sRZtUEvwD8yiHJq9YmisGZhV/+hP lLtkwQ37pPYjgjCwkelwIIXL5pFmILcZmA3iF/skMudE7MQK8kdVjvde/N6tN3qxxrn2z2JTo reYJZ9IfRKq47+onzeFOGFr14J6+onZK2aPd3mk5fGNqGELCPU8MAfxNxJOwaEG9Sod5G618y YYUG29c/cNf7Gqe+WKiHCLL3SHBQTsojQ8CxNzGEMy0l9sLMrVFJAJlubIv70/N3lZu7USAsF Q1fSuwiMumfrtFTpzApG7V/wWisM7gPdRLk/RSyEWfACZ3E3Dn6I2V/8tkGyKv6lYmXEkZd8Z Cv4OgtK0TJVymyJylaoCPBGGk9lmyzNYrv/F7S6ZTcBSX1BqPlKPQD453Abj/8aEtOHX4Ey3f dxng9TwwgobCbFQPK9CyRhC/cI5TLzRSaTF1Z87SynpIcUuKRdhJm289V4mcS6e5v4Wlpc9+F R4p9n9xt3YRFzR1n6uM0cucu3qnZzu4LwpzXDYZPICRAh07DL8ciEP0wV0hiYHQ/qowYiGV1w WfUilUKkS5O4g5qLElNATnQC+QjEF5ER1LZqbcKkzYozTC3o2q3im0A1A5Dt9t/s6ryrf4nLV z9o85W3iHDnB1bXTZzzIUk3eiUxBWMt355cwLAOZcKhWR9AgZEYRVZE2YeLLga6yA6/MTn5xB 1PTSrNPdkQrZNeO8GFcviI++9KvqiVXHmvhUcBEdfPzqLCH0ySseZ3VFD+Vy33kO5W3B+9oJL LGrAKRlZImIgSfGa1ei5sLovLuTwxt3lSuqMvSQEpLtW/bVwSuneFIIOhC549iKUVe/30RbnS tAm6pMVMKFJeJarxdPkbahWC0Kj2ohA65I4hyGuXmtR4HHBYK9bsUibbDr1pBa66hLjzb1jKb e7bFdQ== 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 17:55:35 -0000 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/u= s-to-build-its-first-ever-electric-road-that-wirelessly-charges-evs-as-the= y-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