From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23E323B2A4 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 17:41:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-d84c24a810dso1548948276.2 for ; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 14:41:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1696369267; x=1696974067; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Gm9zrbq7E5J7A0GpFqSUyYK/7xBXEmpPniELKP6KXXQ=; b=iEoactsZlAnbCgXlpvLFlhhBMqOsf1R/qrWvNU0SZJWS/gYiydU9yyl4xp70ucouo5 vvlofQyd+bguoXZa8v85g3vOfB6GVDa2dZUytVAeTDA9H3I3e+evHuvKNPztvUKpb0Rf fEzQPJ99/GBEE5pMgs0dJA1orVmRDOTABlZX1C6mvmYo8ttunNn7podTiwu5f+0rjIfZ zE6UkKbZcc2Eo1Xag8tC2k2/ggM5NFxP3IRz9uDdB1WgZS3Pou906uJ1D5jqv8WeE//I Gk6QL+4zKRfKiAEazUIYYEGQFGpfUkiqXN5WLNLL6p2b6+7w2Q+QXYx84yf1rlZXAM3K s26Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696369267; x=1696974067; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Gm9zrbq7E5J7A0GpFqSUyYK/7xBXEmpPniELKP6KXXQ=; b=ZqRUd6PRfSzc3v/4WiiH1fHy+2HqTP9zVcyw5qYbIMzVs7VFmwbcxrRplThFNirpxo EYUgsW72DtvBPrDUKNDP93Pa73nfiSfGGRg3pM5jyrrEzlPOwZd33QDMH+Mbo4GfPJ1I YCwGkU426qv7+ggQ42uLDtC6wdaxrf0bJcnUCkcNB/RAzwprgBtbX+ciaEWUD9UzjEoC p6cE5Iwb3w55Ey8lhxQTVKZLLzR/PnhQkcNo1fnCl69gj+luHo8P5s884OeDkBI6WuGX tDg/+wC0+nRnIm/whUWjUe5tk9UXXGNU5F+6bwGdePMMUHlZbmdNoG81NJnaemTATV0t iYUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx1aopdWaVhNUq0svQBx4t7CYPgzxeg2AgwI51hCqAkpPwNVPRW d8U8b/6YaZ+MBSTI4K0g/RKV++M540IxZax5ku5ETWQ6dBQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHGqPIXNQi6uoCcwR129+/Z+HlX25ke6vILMc+EBBdsCrSNLMlHiRQuK6n5stfXezCSNXdkMEzx8b7K1TbUwPU= X-Received: by 2002:a25:cad7:0:b0:d5d:4df9:b6e2 with SMTP id a206-20020a25cad7000000b00d5d4df9b6e2mr436886ybg.46.1696369266876; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 14:41:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6D7F7242-248B-4FD4-BEDA-EE931B7DFE3C@andyring.com> <0a158308-e0c1-4722-8013-745e3ded232d@app.fastmail.com> <1B7534EB-2FCE-4500-B53D-F1DFEED1DBC7@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: From: dan Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 15:40:55 -0600 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back=21_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_asp?= =?UTF-8?Q?ects_heard_this_time=21?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008f65c40606d6bfc0" 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 21:41:08 -0000 --0000000000008f65c40606d6bfc0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. 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. 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. 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. On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:26=E2=80=AFPM Colin_Higbie via Nnagain < nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Sebastian, > > 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 th= at > 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. > > There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, bu= t > history shows that in the long run, government interference in the form o= f > 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. > > On the Google point, I respect that you disagree that Google's offering i= n > my hypothetical where it's bound to their own services would not have bee= n > as good as open 20Mbps Internet access. I would probably feel the same wa= y. > 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 unpredictab= le > freedom to innovate and find new niches that customers want to pay for. A= nd > 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 disagre= e) > can out-predict the crowd-sourcing power and wisdom of the entire free > market. > > 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 the= ir > 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 proble= ms > AND that customers are too stupid to choose the service that's of value t= o > them. > > 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 o= ne > infused by a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. > > Tying that together with your point on the government policies protecting > local monopolies: Why did Verizon start to build FiOS? Because they thoug= ht > 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. > > That FiOS example is one of the best case studies of exactly how > government regulation primarily stifles and harms end user experience wit= h > respect to Internet access speeds. > > 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 s= ay > 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. > > 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 a= nd > are rarely ever retracted, better safe than sorry on this. > > 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 favo= r > of forcing equal access. However, I also believe that the same regulation= s > 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 occu= r > 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. > > Cheers, > Colin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sebastian Moeller > Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM > To: Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects hea= rd > this time! > Cc: Colin_Higbie > Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors > > 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 at= tendant > 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 caref= ul > about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the u= se > 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 t= ry > to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be insufficient= ly > creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not discriminate" directiv= e > 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 i= nnovation > 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 o= f > the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wante= d > 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 genera= l > 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 simpl= e > "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 show= n > 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 alread= y > break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies= , > therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree wi= th > 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 shou= ld 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 m= ay > take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, the= y > 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 th= e > 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 offe= r > 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 full= y > 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 woul= d > 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 an= d > showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). W= e > deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided > the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider fo= r > something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access. > > > > In short, with ISP=E2=80=99s the open-ended government protected monopo= lies 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 t= he > expected return of investment falls with the number of already existing > networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of ISPs tgat migh= t > 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, bi= th > 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 prioritiz= e 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 respec= t > to future innovation. > > [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopol= y > likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is where t= he > 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 fibe= rs > to the local IX and maybe deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on t= he > 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 consequen= ces 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, tha= t > 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 IS= P. > 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 a= s > 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 > --0000000000008f65c40606d6bfc0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I know we're well off on a tangent here, but it's = all somewhat related.=C2=A0 The competitive=C2=A0landscape really dictates = how much regulation needs to be involved.=C2=A0 The less the competition, t= he more the government needs to take a roll to keep that small pool or sing= le vendor in check.=C2=A0 Government really=C2=A0must take a regulatory rul= e here in my opinion because there are bad actors and so much of America re= lies=C2=A0on them for mediocre services.

The who's and how of pr= evious monopolies really do matter because we can't take a true lesson = if we don't have the facts.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 I do really appreciate everyone's perspectives though.= =C2=A0 Lots of great stuff here.

The problem I see is that from my p= erspective, we need a 2 pronged attack.=C2=A0 As Gene says above, presentin= g a post analysed solution to the powers that be might be helpful.=C2=A0=C2= =A0
prong 1 is to clarify what NN is in legal terms and build transparen= cy in.=C2=A0 If a service is NN they can choose to say so, if they are not = they have to say they are not.=C2=A0 I might lose this battle and all servi= ces may have to be NN, IDK, I'm just presenting my thoughts.=C2=A0 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'.=C2=A0 Why do so many people h= ave poor service when we have so much infrastructure?=C2=A0 No access.=C2= =A0 As an operator in multiple states I assure you all that access to exist= ing fibers that were built by government money is minimum, even at splice h= uts getting=C2=A0services can be impossible.=C2=A0 I literally ran fiber th= rough my current service area on contract in the late 90's that I canno= t purchase services off of today. it sits there dark.=C2=A0 I know it's= there, I feel like I still have the blisters.=C2=A0 I would suggest the mi= croIX somehow, maybe pushing for schools to have a microIX hanging off of t= hem or city halls or something.=C2=A0 Heck, the schools could get 100G and = x dark fibers delivered to the nearest IX and let them sell ports off of th= at for a tariffed rate.=C2=A0 I'm sure we could come up with 2 dozen al= l for the public good models to get microIXs all over the place to solve th= is.=C2=A0 I promise that access to high capacity data will spur competition= like crazy.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 It's crazy= .

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:26=E2=80=AFPM Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
Seb= astian,

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 provide= r supporters had what you stated as the goal. However, the money driving th= e politicians, paying for those ads and social media campaigns, etc. came f= rom the content providers who wanted government support and protection. Thi= s doesn't make the carriers right (or wrong), just know that the big su= pporters were the content providers and for obvious business reasons =E2=80= =93 they wanted to get their content to customers for free.

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 s= ome measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation. That in turn = hurts consumers in the end.

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 ha= ve been as good as open 20Mbps Internet access. I would probably feel the s= ame 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 entre= nched competitors would need to up their game or lose at least some custome= rs. They would either increase their capacity and available bandwidth or to= ut 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 th= e better value for customers. None of us as individuals (as much as Xi Jinp= ing might disagree) can out-predict the crowd-sourcing power and wisdom of = the entire free market.

I completely agree with you that my saying "it might have spawned sign= ificant investment..." is speculative. The core of that is the fundame= ntal point of economics though: individuals making choices for their own se= lf-interest is what drives innovation and advancement in a way that ultimat= ely helps everyone. In other words, the regulation would also have been spe= culative that it would help more than not having that regulation. And it wo= uld 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.

Given a choice between speculating that future innovations might solve prob= lems or speculating that we're doomed without government protection fro= m 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 econ= omic force of the past decades, and one infused by a culture of innovation = and entrepreneurship.

Tying that together with your point on the government policies protecting l= ocal 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 st= op building it out? Because they ran into too many localities who blocked t= hem with legislative and regulatory hurdles.

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.

I also agree with your concluding points that if carrier access were regula= ted, business would do their thing, adapt, and find a way forward. The worl= d 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 c= omputing technology would be further advanced in unpredictable ways by not = removing some of those axes of freedom from the entrepreneurs as they innov= ate. The gains are only in the very short term. Protecting my Netflix acces= s today is nice, but getting 1Tbps access (or sub 0.1ms latency for radical= ly different levels of computation interactivity, or something else we don&= #39;t even realize matters yet) to be commonplace in 20 years might be even= better.

Taking all of the above together, this is why if we're looking for a ST= ARTING point (and to be fair to your points, maybe more would be needed aft= er 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 an= d are rarely ever retracted, better safe than sorry on this.

By the way, I say this as a guy on the content-providing side of the proble= m. So, to the extent that I have business bias, it would be in favor of for= cing equal access. However, I also believe that the same regulations that w= ould 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 innov= ators and entrepreneurs have the freedom of the open sky (with all the conf= usion and wrong turns and failures that admittedly come with that), not und= er a smothering tarp of regulation.

Cheers,
Colin


-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects heard= this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

Hi Colin,

> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferblo= at.net> wrote:
>
> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&= D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting th= at into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit i= ncentives. A company won=E2=80=99t invest in doing something new with atten= dant 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 carefu= l about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the u= se of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to se= e the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anyt= hing resembling NN regulation.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say= that who is selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly tha= t 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 disc= riminate" directive really restricts the space of potential innovation= s in any meaningful way.


> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion beca= use future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations w= e can conceive of today.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially pre= dictions 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 superficiall= y bad, it=E2=80=99s an important part of the very competition that drives i= nnovation 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 re= st of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had w= anted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon t= o those customers.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not ha= ve been meaningful internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access lin= k 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 is= sues)


> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then cons= idered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waitin= g 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 t= hat 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 signific= ant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the = board.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] This is purely speculative though, it migh= t as well had shown nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fibe= r roll-out was so small as to be not representative of anything, no?

>=C2=A0
> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies alrea= dy break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companie= s, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree w= ith that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terr= ible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those m= onopolies, and they don=E2=80=99t want to risk that).
>=C2=A0
> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or priorit= ize data, whether by content or protocol =E2=80=93 which they should be all= owed to do, EVEN WHEN IT=E2=80=99S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS =E2=80=93 but, at leas= t 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, t= hey can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company nego= tiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would= personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, b= ut then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing f= irms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] The problem is that access networks often = are not legal monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a h= igh-speed capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for= other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can torpedo su= ch a deployment by lowering prices such that too few customers change to ma= ke 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 inc= entive 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 networ= k into the public hands, like other important infrastructure. The idea woul= d 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 e= nd-users in that access network internet access services. That still leaves= the natural monopoly of the access network untouched, but puts it under ma= nagement of en entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as priva= te entities are).
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 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 m= y 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 t= he inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for s= omething like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
>=C2=A0
> In short, with ISP=E2=80=99s the open-ended government protected monop= olies are the problem,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies= where nobody else is permitted to build a competing network, but natural m= onopolies 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 stil= l 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 deliv= er on its promises.


> not the providers=E2=80=99 ability to overcharge customers or prioriti= ze some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as c= ompetition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it thro= ugh regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to f= uture innovation.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, bu= t IMHO an oligopoly likely would not result in meaningful enough competitio= n. 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 nee= d to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs th= ere (depending) on the local network tech, and can start offer services, wi= thout having to deal with the access network.

> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based= Internet is another.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulati= ons, neither depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule= , no?


> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under d= ifferent 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 innovatio= ns, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.=

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always = set the stage for which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and wh= ich 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 futur= e expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active di= scrimination, 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 innovati= on space available even for active discrimination.

Regards
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Sebastian


>=C2=A0
> Cheers,
> Colin Higbie
>=C2=A0
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nna= gain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@= lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
--0000000000008f65c40606d6bfc0--