From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt1-x82f.google.com (mail-qt1-x82f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82f]) (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 06E0F3B2A4 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x82f.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-41954a3e282so8530421cf.2 for ; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 11:10:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1696356616; x=1696961416; 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=xFBSrLl6wSencMXGGaMa3VHgSHGrnqOO/T3WH5+lr64=; b=gamG4MLDVzpBB64pRgCcpmDCHr07dRV+ntoFnvOlog16C3ouLvyXVgpsnACp/9h5Av o0Ydmc7P1VYTXafCxfK+Gd0RFR98O2WvEOcs+PvI+CRRKpIIlfcrfE+bRK/cxKViTWUG W2iyOoUjGg0LOItuCAyDwnIyNRdwP+YY60FqT25xr9QACojj2Cehmb9DcCFPpRjKJR5S Mxuj8rExmXJINlOHqVFuX5b31jGioONQW3zsABgccSObXw7DJgmGK/iQOA0MAluOgO4n 4ecuMF6YFqrRTSll+9NAx3yhsWmmGhhxzFzOnHZyHiS0WMmS0EbBNyFivsACqqckVCND nX8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696356616; x=1696961416; 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=xFBSrLl6wSencMXGGaMa3VHgSHGrnqOO/T3WH5+lr64=; b=dG2HlSlEZQfq/Ao6Nwv6Eaq/9MfB6XNY9ajLlFarKFtTn7QgwJGWZ+M+MtRrBF5N9s 0A4H5TmyM4a3dNz/60Yc6h8ylRxu6ksk/4Rf3fi/eOmMFHse07old0Uz1XBeLJvEVv4c ydL1yDUwx0USfT+UBMKoc0Ur/KtZFpH+Na6cPuqpwFItkkcpW66G+yVItIVc8Fa9keQc POsOmmwFFm2LdMmziEw3HMTZmUQkYKAqYrZuL8dm2xr32Gqf/U6gPUXfBfUsR2U3P0vA gQF0p11+n0B11sRhsKrCvVKWRxGIrSmGEjTQ1G39All8xdcU5GRzUjCQUjVlsPWrN8Fh e34g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxQqHOJ0H3ou8/TRh4dwcW5YN4iDhsaPG+OpNWMXXAV57G9F1vt E/yJlZXvjV5OcuVXPPJj1TlwwSQQ/67P5BlwyQAQI586NWie4w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEWoujOygCK/JjVhU/WkupFai8xcdNlpBEJlRJ7oqmA5yh6vpNyc9p8vr/e3H1/e3lkNWvaf8MNeNiqU9StpHI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:3cd:b0:412:2dd3:e108 with SMTP id k13-20020a05622a03cd00b004122dd3e108mr215286qtx.9.1696356616181; Tue, 03 Oct 2023 11:10:16 -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> <8dbe2688ccf5b9e976a03e8e4f36fb4d@rjmcmahon.com> <9E96A830-CE03-44FC-925B-77896FD6976E@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <9E96A830-CE03-44FC-925B-77896FD6976E@gmx.de> From: Frantisek Borsik Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:09:39 +0200 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?= , rjmcmahon Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008520860606d3cd3d" 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 18:10:17 -0000 --0000000000008520860606d3cd3d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bob - *"beyond FWA which is limited by physics and is energy inefficient, a net negative to climate mitigations"* - why FWA should be energy inefficient and net negative to climate mitigation? I know that I'm drifting this conversation off again, but I strongly disagree with this statement. All the best, Frank Frantisek (Frank) Borsik https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 Skype: casioa5302ca frantisek.borsik@gmail.com On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:55=E2=80=AFPM Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain < nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Hi Bob, > > > > On Oct 3, 2023, at 18:54, rjmcmahon wrote: > > > > Natural monopolies are things with high sunk costs. Things with high > sunk costs don't necessarily exist (like electrified roads) even though > they add huge value to society and can help curb climate impacts. A natur= al > monopoly exists unrelated to a provider already having an infrastructure = in > place per that monopoly. > > > > Fiber with up gradable optics to hundreds of millions of buildings that > can leverage the NRE from data centers are natural monopolies and don't > really exist in most places, even though they are critical to mitigating > climate impact. > > > > The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the U.S. was > pushed in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out. > > [SM] I only monitored this cursory (not living in the US any > longer), but I seem to recall quite a number of questionable plays agains= t > 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. Tha= t > 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 a= re > likely the only U.S. companies that will upgrade again (beyond FWA which = is > limited by physics and is energy inefficient, a net negative to climate > mitigations.) > > > > The U.S. railroads were natural monopolies. They were given massive lan= d > grants to build out. They ran as private companies for about one century. > They lost their monopoly position after third generations who inherited > them used these monopolies to price guoge government during WWI and WWII. > That's part of the reason most DoT type govt agencies today are "roads & > airports" vs "roads, rail & airports." Rail has been re privatized and > under invested - perfect for Warren Buffett but no so good for everyone > else nor for the climate. > > > > Governments will respond to monopoly abuse after it occurs, not before. > > [SM] Indeed, that is often the case... > > > First, the infrastructure needs massive funding to be installed, howeve= r > that can get done. Municipal revenue bonds & networks sound nice in theor= y > but haven't worked over the last two decades. Time to try something > different. > > [SM] Again I argue that has not really been tried, but unless > there is going to be a big change in DC it is not going ot be tried for > real in the future either, so in essence we might agree ;) > > Regards > Sebastian > > > > > Bob > > > > > https://www.electrichybridvehicletechnology.com/news/charging-technology/= us-to-build-its-first-ever-electric-road-that-wirelessly-charges-evs-as-the= y-drive.html > > > >> Hi Colin, > >>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain < > nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >>> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D o= r > 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 selli= ng > >> 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 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 > >> 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 o= f > 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 > already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable > companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I large= ly > 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 breaki= ng > 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 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 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 mono= polies > 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 priorit= ize 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 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-base= d > 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, > >> that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I > >> really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future > >> expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active > >> discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss). > >> Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most > >> NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not > >> the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize > >> vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load" > >> option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little, > >> as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be > >> subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves > >> some innovation space available even for active discrimination. > >> Regards > >> Sebastian > >>> Cheers, > >>> Colin Higbie > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Nnagain mailing list > >>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Nnagain mailing list > >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > --0000000000008520860606d3cd3d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bob - "beyond FWA which is=C2=A0limited by physics and is= energy inefficient, a net negative to climate=C2=A0mitigations" - why FWA should be energ= y inefficient and net negative to climate mitigation?

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


=
Al= l the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

=C2=A0

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

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714= =C2=A0

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.= borsik@gmail.com



On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:55=E2=80=AFPM Sebas= tian Moeller via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
= Hi Bob,


> On Oct 3, 2023, at 18:54, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>
> Natural monopolies are things with high sunk costs. Things with high s= unk 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 i= n place per that monopoly.
>
> Fiber with up gradable optics to hundreds of millions of buildings tha= t can leverage the NRE from data centers are natural monopolies and don'= ;t really exist in most places, even though they are critical to mitigating= climate impact.
>
> The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the U.S. was pus= hed in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [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 a= s "never really tried", and not as we gave it an honest try but i= t fell short. That said many municipalities (in many parts of the world) ar= e hardly in the shape required to built new costly infrastructure as they a= re having troubles maintaining the infrastructure on their hands with the a= vailable 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 i= s limited by physics and is energy inefficient, a net negative to climate m= itigations.)
>
> The U.S. railroads were natural monopolies. They were given massive la= nd grants to build out. They ran as private companies for about one century= . They lost their monopoly position after third generations who inherited t= hem used these monopolies to price guoge government during WWI and WWII. Th= at's part of the reason most DoT type govt agencies today are "roa= ds & airports" vs "roads, rail & airports." Rail has= been re privatized and under invested - perfect for Warren Buffett but no = so good for everyone else nor for the climate.
>
> Governments will respond to monopoly abuse after it occurs, not before= .

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Indeed, that is often the case...

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

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Again I argue that has not really been tri= ed, but unless there is going to be a big change in DC it is not going ot b= e tried for real in the future either, so in essence we might agree ;)

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

>
> Bob
>
> https://ww= w.electrichybridvehicletechnology.com/news/charging-technology/us-to-build-= its-first-ever-electric-road-that-wirelessly-charges-evs-as-they-drive.html=
>
>> Hi Colin,
>>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.b= ufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> While product and service innovation often originates from pur= e R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, conve= rting that into commercially viable products and services is the result of = profit incentives. A company won=E2=80=99t invest in doing something new wi= th attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment great= er than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support= to some other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremel= y careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, includi= ng the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who wa= nt to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should w= ant anything resembling NN regulation.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] At its core NN regulations really just sa= y that who is selling
>> internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not tr= y 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 potenti= al
>> innovations in any meaningful way.
>>> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discuss= ion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical consider= ations we can conceive of today.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially pr= edictions about the future ;)
>>> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to pr= ioritize or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem supe= rficially 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 F= iber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most o= f the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Goog= le had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been = a boon to those customers.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not h= ave 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 t= hen considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiti= ng even though >=3D 1
>> Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see i= t we
>> still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go abov= e
>> simple "more parallel" or "faster".
>>> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the t= enets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned = significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity acr= oss the board.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] This is purely speculative though, it mig= ht 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 monopoli= es 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 shoul= d 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 belie= ve 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 comp= any 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 com= peting firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone= lines.
>>=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 high-s= peed
>> capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for<= br> >> 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&qu= ot; 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 th= at
>> is inherent in the network's structure.
>> One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the acce= ss
>> network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure= .
>> The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other<= br> >> places to have a local access network provider that in turn
>> "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where inter= ested ISPs con
>> connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network
>> internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly o= f
>> 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).
>>=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 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 l= ocal
>> 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 every= one and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructio= ns). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, pr= ovided the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consid= er for something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
>>> In short, with ISP=E2=80=99s the open-ended government protect= ed monopolies are the problem,
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolie= s where nobody else is
>> permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies whe= re
>> the expected return of investment falls with the number of already=
>> existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number o= f
>> 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 doe= s
>> 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 l= ong as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force= it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with resp= ect to future innovation.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, b= ut IMHO an oligopoly
>> likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is<= br> >> where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes t= he
>> 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 netwo= rk.
>>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellul= ar-based Internet is another.
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulat= ions, 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, becaus= e 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 inn= ovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regula= tions.
>>=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 which are n= ot,
>> 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 fu= ture
>> expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about ac= tive
>> discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).
>> Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permit= ted 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 "pri= oritize
>> vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under l= oad"
>> option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a lit= tle,
>> 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 lea= ves
>> some innovation space available even for active discrimination. >> Regards
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Sebastian
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin Higbie
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nn= again
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagai= n

_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@= lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
--0000000000008520860606d3cd3d--