From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oo1-xc36.google.com (mail-oo1-xc36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c36]) (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 C98643CB37 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:04:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oo1-xc36.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-57e3c2adbf0so105697eaf.2 for ; Mon, 02 Oct 2023 14:04:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1696280678; x=1696885478; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=C6Cgq8ZrMSBT2EENTBGRgh5Qb1J7aVz1AAycNmHmSIo=; b=awv7D3jVFrqtx582HGMIyWP/UeJ9DPRnxDFZPImshcUU60SMNm4sDMLtlmU22aOji0 R/9oJ9k7KwQoGRdTUz4fvTK3EiXrUslzugBaeGXtORrwEPxu4q8niPfewxCkQgFV+N8z DWyuI8ENbWdbB/WFGCker2pv03Z/KnePgv30w+92T8B4j+lpI0zDNQHn4WgO51wulNvv S6BG9CN33kTf/cNgC/qrAyOBhxkDZAj9Jyc2sgUZao++FFeOD2qfIOuWyFz7cb5WBjFs kR60FKKPHbll4OxBsJuv46ThThZAd6vO93GCbzxlVHs3uNNsvdkbzgtcRb+f5Z0nmKq0 hDBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696280678; x=1696885478; h=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=C6Cgq8ZrMSBT2EENTBGRgh5Qb1J7aVz1AAycNmHmSIo=; b=X/51yjtjZIr5e6hu5pC0R1lVvne/gTnH6O+AlKXOG0/FzfiMIlJmdGS0mnYxRewpJb +QzYNYLfjjAsoURGYg0u0x47vUzjgZuN63MV5FtLdnXQS2uV0WtnuDaCKRYEd5wiphlJ xJnbUrMh88Ca8pmoVXADUaFuEUFiBYfyNe7dLJ8BvDWejT82gf6ZW24ZbGZTVyvoIMtH J9xjCfxvqQzBxaEIPiu7NcrmC3cy5h5rhv5rNeuA5AT4773b1AzOGUiy7WDMX0gG0LoZ fAUdPrlZFh8L/XeaB1u9N7L9CFWwW0dwQqhNoKJlblfMO3ekWQ+PKklgfCjjSzwhYFF0 9rdA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzyXO5AMxKXglih2agSVA3XXj6Enoru2fwH6c5cujpQeHijSkwG nPfAWGhP8fVst0mZyjrT9uAzMskSNI+f+iH8YGurYojYQs4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE5ekOSUVB58qVrbOC1tisIlyVRLEM+s/SryV/HQL2tyMEbfGmixM6vS0NaIdv+2c3XhcWmbw/01CVa65Im3p0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6358:928:b0:14c:e2d3:fb2e with SMTP id r40-20020a056358092800b0014ce2d3fb2emr14735791rwi.0.1696280678340; Mon, 02 Oct 2023 14:04:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6D7F7242-248B-4FD4-BEDA-EE931B7DFE3C@andyring.com> <0a158308-e0c1-4722-8013-745e3ded232d@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dave Cohen Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:04:27 -0400 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="000000000000459e7b0606c21f11" 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: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 21:04:39 -0000 --000000000000459e7b0606c21f11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree fulsomely with 95% of this point - the persistence of local monopolies is the proximal cause of this debate. I don't, however, believe that eliminating a local monopoly structure inherently precludes the need to consider the "actual issues". For one thing, we've all borne witness to cycles of expansion and consolidation in the ISP/telco space - there's no reason to expect that after a cycle of competitive expansion, additional consolidation leads us right back to a similar issue of competitive imbalance some years later. For another, I think answering some of the more philosophical questions in this debate remains relevant regardless - not the least of which because it seems inevitable that those who desire to maintain regulatory oversight of these things will maintain regulatory oversight of these things. On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:34=E2=80=AFPM 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what > was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user= . > 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. > > > > 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 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 should be allow= ed to do, > EVEN WHEN IT=E2=80=99S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS =E2=80=93 but, at least referrin= g 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 competin= g > firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone line= s. > > > > 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 monopoli= es are > the problem, not the providers=E2=80=99 ability to overcharge customers o= r > 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 wi= th > respect to future innovation. > > > > Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based > Internet is another. 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 unf= oreseen > 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. > > > > Cheers, > > Colin Higbie > > > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > --=20 - Dave Cohen craetdave@gmail.com @dCoSays www.venicesunlight.com --000000000000459e7b0606c21f11 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree fulsomely with 95% of this point - the persistence= of local monopolies is the proximal cause of this debate. I don't, how= ever, believe that eliminating a local monopoly structure inherently preclu= des the need to consider the "actual issues". For one thing, we&#= 39;ve all borne witness to cycles of expansion and consolidation in the ISP= /telco space - there's no reason to expect that after a cycle of compet= itive expansion, additional consolidation leads us right back to a similar = issue of competitive imbalance some years later. For another, I think answe= ring some of the more philosophical questions in this debate remains releva= nt regardless - not the least of which because it seems inevitable that tho= se who desire to maintain regulatory=C2=A0oversight of these things will ma= intain regulatory oversight of these things.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:34=E2= =80=AFPM Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

While product and service innovation often originate= s from pure R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all ca= ses, 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 th= ey can expect a return on that investment greater than the alternatives (or= they believe it will provide strategic support to some other product or se= rvice). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, includin= g the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who wan= t to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should wa= nt anything resembling NN regulation.

=C2=A0

The regulatory side of this is largely not a technic= al discussion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technica= l considerations we can conceive of today.

=C2=A0

It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP w= ants 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 competi= tion 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 struggl= ing to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google= services, that still might have been a boon to those customers. Further, it could have shown the uses and = values of what was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small = business user. 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 an= d advanced the state of connectivity across the board.

=C2=A0

I know the counter argument to this is that local IS= P 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).

=C2=A0

Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how the= y 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 m= onopoly durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can manda= te (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). Thes= e need not be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company ne= gotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I wou= ld 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 happene= d with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.

=C2=A0

This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a = company a 20 year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it publi= c 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 band= width innovation, investment, and access.

=C2=A0

In short, with ISP=E2=80=99s the open-ended governme= nt protected monopolies are the problem, not the providers=E2=80=99 ability= to overcharge customers or prioritize some data over others. Competition w= ill fix that over time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through regulatio= n, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future innovat= ion.

=C2=A0

Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is anoth= er. Cellular-based Internet is another. Simply buying bulk access on existi= ng lines and repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Tho= se all seem obvious, because they=E2=80=99re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the dampen= ing effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the inn= ovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.

=C2=A0

Cheers,

Colin Higbie

=C2=A0

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


--
--000000000000459e7b0606c21f11--