From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (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 D9F873CB37 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2023 14:43:12 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696531391; x=1697136191; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=o81azMjxhA9/j+ciWr0GqKegzDXSAVbZ+bc1Mx6IvVI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=nH8ZQNtDTS3VXzQ1lbzXO0au0VwkfZWRtS2EtAWfI1OmWhllH68fStrdzdTCLCFl9dv6QAnMGI+ naKFWiO89kUQYNePhLI3LmjlYpMXDwcOhOw+vweDLNhWuyKcgLJyx7XTFzNuBYOSeufrZ6n2m0rUs FKp9VDOgVwbmrSCsGAmoTsJDbQHZzGKIEpTKRNzuv3hsJu87N6MyhwDt0YhzJk8nrQkrhvcV/kBK3 HTK2nhE0dDZXx+XYpKr4VQF6nTcZ8Ss+/tXklYM7CJG4Wwu6ZvbNI+BvXVxQtL8wovECD8N+tmlX1 Ki/IwglKQVm2yAW2wyrX6y3q5hgY00iU18bw== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M26vB-1qmP5Y27Oj-002a85; Thu, 05 Oct 2023 10:44:05 +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: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 10:44:04 +0200 Cc: dan , =?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: References: <6D7F7242-248B-4FD4-BEDA-EE931B7DFE3C@andyring.com> <0a158308-e0c1-4722-8013-745e3ded232d@app.fastmail.com> <1B7534EB-2FCE-4500-B53D-F1DFEED1DBC7@gmx.de> To: Colin Higbie X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:pwBa22Z3biJl985Lnlr4tX4RgDwfN5ufkeUjkj9YdLeOHNORFGP 5NmO6zWwKHNnawizKe96nX+2sh4m+6nNwNN/UpCmHelTMevQBshETT3iDWlancfxCBXiuiK cBzlD35q8Oq8NK6iY1+f5tRGIfdDF84N0U3kIl1ZurDxXwnsuv2IJmuun0ECG7BgQwpcsBj Xlc8JR/uNpXsdIaTK1Gvw== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:onYBkdS+/tA=;BzivLnWmNTbv/rNUOHqilANwSW9 J1BoAWLNQdSApkWLMSsSV8d9Nk/kBHwWgM66/JY2n+sUWxg+nII8HJZowbfa/ZbTw/IwnbHTt v8oLgsGSQtemzsm0Bp8hOaxsoJxe5BSTmxLFZOE16ceqwLj7kCPaV3thZQpvKBgP4jXwqyl3K JSFfWUn8uKdXpaiZQDy/S6RVPnJgf+QXZ9qWodDqGABByr67YaqpX1D84XxSIdTB7FjaNu3V+ n9g4ATiqO5n4ByY26fsBwFIwZiY5MAKbn/hJT04K3Feo9mrjn8DLuW6daReb3c9EqVcsHsl5D jQw9rad/vUWbpvuulF+NRCmq6pTdHI/rNfG2orAAbM/YZueFFw5XSY8vaQNpHebVUMznDJC8y jY+RG6SvkB7HkafjgiOr5QlfFkraou1BZrAr2iYcQBn2IafCagFucV0PbvRQiNchyxJB5zGO/ t36QdbA+PVGvf9SlK6UONc6L5LJ+O3S0tRgKJar+u3ss4DkxjO/m8tnDvLWAlBchTLfZ/1zOB Tvwt8riFY4cVv3vt4PU+vcxv06Ltv+C1BpQckyXR9njh+w7k+kFS/Fj+5Tnncq6n0ZzpFi1xM cuW8YK8jwmjaukXhgzsR+DbyI9MfISfpMnJKHZXG+mBtQI8zVqFJ88G6BBZ7gkMQ+bJ73cF0x oCGPk/8ZqGqHdW4/mk3BHFnbeGE4G6LOUI36vhpDoz+qWEwx7s/yT/UnFhaL2szy0aJHOHU32 UpqMZ9Bz6vsawXTInnrj/RUn7LNAiHHEdQ7IrX/7MRtX8iEspFdHh2Zq4yP6qfrHQIfm6E/28 CRwmEWu689X7BWfhhAKYBpFBde9/dz7jdz3oanN054XeLP8Kdka/PAmcYCeMCFP9zypA1RV09 3WqCKIcaQmQsdpQwNoKgz7AS2jfjLwalxj9CwJjUPV8PxaSmPjxVu8mXrbJnltG5Hac0OiY8r FwIPM4o219urKW/QxcKpHpsY1uw= 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: Thu, 05 Oct 2023 18:43:13 -0000 Hi Colin, I started composing a long reply to a previous post, but realized that = due a philosophical difference that was not going in a productive = direction, so instead, let's discuss our preconceptions first, as these = clearly have bearing on our positions in the NN discussion? Or not, if = you prefer not to go down this rabbit hole that is also fine ;) > On Oct 4, 2023, at 17:53, Colin Higbie wrote: >=20 > I suspect we are all after similar long-term goals =E2=80=93 open = access to as many people as possible with performance metrics that users = appreciate (as opposed to raw bandwidth marketing claims that can mask = buffer bloat problems). > =20 > What I fear many here are missing in this discussion is the damage = regulations cause. There is an assumption in this response that humans = can architect rational legislation that will make things better. The = preponderance of evidence is that regulations don=E2=80=99t do that. [SM] I see a lot of evidence for harm caused by lack of = regulations or lack of enforcement of regulations, e.g.: a) the Enron scandal (at its base fraud and the attempt to hide that = fraud) b) the Lehmann brother sub-prime market scandal, "innovations" in debt = reselling resulted in a massive almost global crisis where in many = countries the tax payer ended up paying for the damage caused by = under-regulated finance-product-innovation. c) anti-competitive behavior of tech companies, be it purchase of = potential competitors with attractive products only to let these whimper = and die, be it collusion on hiring to artificially restrict the = employment supply side, ... In these cases either stricter regulations and/or stricter enforcement = of regulations could have saved us (as society) a lot of cost...=20 But I mighr be looking at this too single-minded, if you want, please = give examples of where regulations strangled innovation... I will = however likely not accept pure hypotheticals of the kind "with less = regulation we would have seen more innovation", as that is simply not = provable one way or the other. > They serve as a starting point for a new bureaucracy that grows, = taxes, and crushes innovation out of whatever is being regulated. = Because politics. [SM] Unlike corporate policy, public policy is shapeable, that = is people can vote and be voted for and hence influence local policies = and if they convince enough folks of their positions also state or = federal government activities. Now, laws are often made as compromises, = which is both bad (compromises tend to not result in simple principled = statements, but lots of seemingly unrelated give-and-take) and good (as = long as it is not clear that one side is completely in the rough a = compromise will end up being generally more tempered and acceptable to a = larger fraction of the population, which is the conceptual difference = that makes liberal democracy so distinct fron the alternative systems). > =20 > I agree that there are cases where regulation is needed, because the = market can=E2=80=99t drive the same effect because it=E2=80=99s too easy = to push the costs elsewhere (e.g., pollution). I agree that there are = historic cases where regulations have helped make things better (like = with some public safety measures).=20 [SM] The IMHO clear problem with markets is, that those in a = fair market tend to try to change that into a lop-sided market (so into = a supply or demand side oligo- or monopoly) to gain advantages over = others and under such regimes markets do not operate as efficient = resource allocation optimizers, but really as profit optimizers for the = oligo- or monopolist. None of this is novel insight, and all of this is = happening out in the clear and can be observed in real time. > =20 > What I urge is we recognize that there should be a very high bar for = regulations. In this case, where there is negligible evidence they are = needed, we are nowhere near that bar. [SM] I respectfully disagree, NN regulations popped up, exactly = because some ISPs where openly abusing their position as natural = gate-keepers; as so often regulation is reactive and only happens after = somebody abused the freedom offered by the older regulatory regime. That = is not to say that all regulations are perfect or that all historical = regulations need to be carried ad infinitum, but simply that regulations = do rarely happen pro-actively, and simply dumping regulations without = first checking which problem they tackled and whether that problem still = exists, is an act of ideology and not of good governance. (Nobody here = proposed blindly dumping existing regulations, but that idea is out = there in the US and the UK and also in Germany, and probably other = places as well*) *) This often ties into the paragraph above, those that feel unhappy in = a fair market seek to get those regulations relaxed/removed they = consider obstacles in getting more control over their market. The sad = irony is that often the same corporations lobbying for relaxaion od = regulations at the same time consider everything not explicitly denied = as "fair game", and sometimes even more (see e.g. the libor scandal) = where they simnply factor potential fines as "cost of doing business", = but I digress again. > Absent a critical need, we are better served, at least in the = long-run, in letting the market fight it out. This will no doubt lead to = some bad outcomes for some people, primarily investors who back the = wrong horses, but also some customers who end up with less performant = connections. [SM] Performance isn't the issue here (most end-users would = likely judge: access rate =3D=3D performance) it is wll established that = different rate-tiers can be proced differently. What is at issue here is = that those paying for transport services can expect that they will get = the transport services they pay for. If I hire a trucking company to = transport a shipping container from say NY to LA, I expect them to do = that and charge me a price which allows them to make a living, what I do = not expect is that in LA they start extorting the receiver (we will only = deliver in time if you pay us extra, or worse unless you pay extra we = will not deliver at all). Internet access service is IMHO a sort of = transport service, and I see very little need for any fancy "innovation" = here, sure faster more efficient techniques will be appreciated, but = these really only affect the cost/price structure and change nothing on = the underlaying contract structure. > However, that free-for-all drives things forward en-masse and the poor = options die off. That=E2=80=99s the product and service evolution, or = Darwinism if you prefer, that drives optimal outcomes. [SM] Let's leave natural evolution out of this please, never a = good analogy if looked at closely... (I am a biologist by education and = profession) > Faith in someone=E2=80=99s intelligent design (no matter how good you = think it is) will not yield positive results, or at least not as = positive in the long-run. Even if it starts out well, it will get = twisted by political horse trading and bureaucratic control into = something worse than you envision, never better. [SM] I hear/read this quite oftem, what you call "political = horse trading" is essentially what policy is supposed to do, make = compromises over a set of acceptable positions such that a majority can = stomach the resulting hodgepodge... Now, this is not always perfect and = often these compromises contain hard to swallow components not designed = for the greater good, but that does not invalidate the process of = finding positions that a majority can tolerate or even support. > =20 > Now, if you want to talk about forming a voluntary organization to = make technical recommendations and perhaps standardize some language = (like the Wi-Fi and USB consortiums), I think that=E2=80=99s fine and = would support that fully. If done well (e.g., the latest USB C was not, = with a lot of uncertainty around what USB C means and unlabeled cables = more than the connectors determining power delivery capacity and = bandwidth), the language around this and a standard means of testing and = communicating bandwidth, latency, buffer bloat, etc. assists the better = solutions to dominate in the market. [SM] I can only speak from limited experience in the IETF, and I = am not convinced that the IETF process is in the same league as = political consensus finding (with all its "horse-trading" and sausage = making), heck it is not even playing the same game. IETF process has no = real accountability and is based on the laudable idea that with enough = good-faith acceptable compromises can be struck without politics and = horse-trading. The problem is that in reality that process can only work = like intended if everyday acts responsibly with the "greater good" in = mind. That might happen occasionally, but what I observe is closer to = horse-trading, sausage making and consensus by attrition, but I digress. = My point is the existing political process, for all its warts and = potential for improvement is IMHO not as bad as you seem to imply. > I also support legislation specifically around busting the regional = and local monopoly contracts that cable companies use. Those currently = prevent much of the competition that I embrace as the rapid driver for = commercial improvement. [SM] That is not going to help, there is not a queue of folks = that are just waiting for local monopolies to end to throw fiber cables = into the ground and hook up whole neighborhoods... IMHO what would work = better is to force local monopolies to carry bit stream traffic for = competing ISPs at a price close to the incurred cost (as if the = monopolist would need to hire its own access lines, with a smudge of = surplus on top)... I base this on what happens in my own home market, = where the incumbent is forced to offer wholesale products for other = ISPs, with regulated prices that such competitors (if acting = efficiently) can still make a profit when offering internet access below = the price of the incumbent. This while heavy on regulatory intervention = works reasonably well and means that in the incumbents foot print = consumers can actually chose between a few different ISPs. Regards Sebastian > =20 > Cheers, > Colin > =20 > =20 > From: dan =20 > Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5:41 PM > To: Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects = heard this time! > Cc: Sebastian Moeller ; Colin_Higbie = > Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors > =20 > I know we're well off on a tangent here, but it's all somewhat = related. The competitive landscape really dictates how much regulation = needs to be involved. The less the competition, the more the government = needs to take a roll to keep that small pool or single vendor in check. = Government really must take a regulatory rule here in my opinion because = there are bad actors and so much of America relies on them for mediocre = services. >=20 > The who's and how of previous monopolies really do matter because we = can't take a true lesson if we don't have the facts. I continue to = stand by my stance that the virtual monopolies in many markets is why we = really need NN or near-NN and soon. I do really appreciate everyone's = perspectives though. Lots of great stuff here. >=20 > The problem I see is that from my perspective, we need a 2 pronged = attack. As Gene says above, presenting a post analysed solution to the = powers that be might be helpful. =20 > prong 1 is to clarify what NN is in legal terms and build transparency = in. If a service is NN they can choose to say so, if they are not they = have to say they are not. I might lose this battle and all services may = have to be NN, IDK, I'm just presenting my thoughts. That's the main = purpose of this thread but I think a lot of members of the mailing list = also have an interest in the second: > prong 2 is to identify 'what went wrong and how to fix it'. Why do so = many people have poor service when we have so much infrastructure? No = access. As an operator in multiple states I assure you all that access = to existing fibers that were built by government money is minimum, even = at splice huts getting services can be impossible. I literally ran = fiber through my current service area on contract in the late 90's that = I cannot purchase services off of today. it sits there dark. I know = it's there, I feel like I still have the blisters. I would suggest the = microIX somehow, maybe pushing for schools to have a microIX hanging off = of them or city halls or something. Heck, the schools could get 100G = and x dark fibers delivered to the nearest IX and let them sell ports = off of that for a tariffed rate. I'm sure we could come up with 2 dozen = all for the public good models to get microIXs all over the place to = solve this. I promise that access to high capacity data will spur = competition like crazy. We have a school in our area that we didn't bid = out but has a 100M fixed wireless link from a competitor as their only = service and word on the street is that it doesn't deliver. It's crazy. > =20 > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:26=E2=80=AFPM Colin_Higbie via Nnagain = wrote: > Sebastian, >=20 > Good points and thanks for the conversation. I agree with you on the = INTENT of the NN regulations as proposed and that most of the = non-content provider supporters had what you stated as the goal. = However, the money driving the politicians, paying for those ads and = social media campaigns, etc. came from the content providers who wanted = government support and protection. This doesn't make the carriers right = (or wrong), just know that the big supporters were the content providers = and for obvious business reasons =E2=80=93 they wanted to get their = content to customers for free. >=20 > There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, = but 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 other, outside matters of public safety and perhaps establishing = and mandating some measuring standards, is always destructive to = innovation. That in turn hurts consumers in the end.=20 >=20 > On the Google point, I respect that you disagree that Google's = offering in my hypothetical where it's bound to their own services would = not have been as good as open 20Mbps Internet access. I would probably = feel the same way. But that's not the point. The point is that if Google = came in OFFERING that, it would have been disruptive. As long as = customers had THE CHOICE of 1G content-controlled vs 20M open (or = whatever they had access to), then Google's offering is only beneficial = in the long run. The entrenched competitors would need to up their game = or lose at least some customers. They would either increase their = capacity and available bandwidth or tout the benefits of their open = access or something else or some combination. That's how customers win = from competition =E2=80=93 it's not just price, or just bandwidth, or = just access freedom, or any one thing. It's the unpredictable freedom to = innovate and find new niches that customers want to pay for. And the = market is ALWAYS better at determining which is the better value for = customers. None of us as individuals (as much as Xi Jinping might = disagree) can out-predict the crowd-sourcing power and wisdom of the = entire free market. >=20 > I completely agree with you that my saying "it might have spawned = significant investment..." is speculative. The core of that is the = fundamental point of economics though: individuals making choices for = their own self-interest is what drives innovation and advancement in a = way that ultimately helps everyone. In other words, the regulation would = also have been speculative that it would help more than not having that = regulation. And it would have assumed BOTH that innovation won't solve = current problems AND that customers are too stupid to choose the service = that's of value to them.=20 >=20 > Given a choice between speculating that future innovations might solve = problems or speculating that we're doomed without government protection = from companies who have not yet really done the = bad-Google-hypothetical-thing I described, I would much rather err on = the side of letting the market and innovation continue to run with = things. After all, that's what took the Internet from a military and = academic network into the most impactful economic force of the past = decades, and one infused by a culture of innovation and = entrepreneurship. >=20 > Tying that together with your point on the government policies = protecting local monopolies: Why did Verizon start to build FiOS? = Because they thought they could attract customers and earn a strong = profit by providing a better, faster Internet via FTTH. On paper, this = was a slam dunk. Why did they stop building it out? Because they ran = into too many localities who blocked them with legislative and = regulatory hurdles.=20 >=20 > That FiOS example is one of the best case studies of exactly how = government regulation primarily stifles and harms end user experience = with respect to Internet access speeds. >=20 > I also agree with your concluding points that if carrier access were = regulated, business would do their thing, adapt, and find a way forward. = The world would not end. All true. No dispute on that. However, I would = say that if we look 20 or 50 or 100 years out, the state of human = communications and computing technology would be further advanced in = unpredictable ways by not removing some of those axes of freedom from = the entrepreneurs as they innovate. The gains are only in the very short = term. Protecting my Netflix access today is nice, but getting 1Tbps = access (or sub 0.1ms latency for radically different levels of = computation interactivity, or something else we don't even realize = matters yet) to be commonplace in 20 years might be even better. >=20 > Taking all of the above together, this is why if we're looking for a = STARTING point (and to be fair to your points, maybe more would be = needed after that, but let's tackle the biggest, most indisputable = problem first), START with dismantling those government-protected = monopolies. Maybe, that will be enough. Given that innovation-crushing = regulations tend to grow and are rarely ever retracted, better safe than = sorry on this. >=20 > By the way, I say this as a guy on the content-providing side of the = problem. So, to the extent that I have business bias, it would be in = favor of forcing equal access. However, I also believe that the same = regulations that would force equal access today would also stymie the = development of 10G and 1T networks and beyond in the future (not their = engineering, but the actual commercial deployment). Advancement and = innovative growth occur when innovators and entrepreneurs have the = freedom of the open sky (with all the confusion and wrong turns and = failures that admittedly come with that), not under a smothering tarp of = regulation.=20 >=20 > Cheers, > Colin >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Sebastian Moeller =20 > Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM > To: Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects = heard this time! > Cc: Colin_Higbie > Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors >=20 > Hi Colin, >=20 > > 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. >=20 > [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. >=20 >=20 > > 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. >=20 > [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions 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 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. >=20 > [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) >=20 >=20 > > Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then = considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user. >=20 > [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 = significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity = across the board. >=20 > [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 = 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. >=20 > [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) >=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 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, >=20 > [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. >=20 >=20 > > 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. >=20 > [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. >=20 > > Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. = Cellular-based Internet is another. >=20 > [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither = depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no? >=20 >=20 > > 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. >=20 > [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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > Regards > Sebastian >=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