[NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[dan]

>
>
>         [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.
>
I agree, even considering my pitch that non-NN but transparently advertised
services should be allowed.  No ISP, even in my example, should get to pick
which services are allowed to be used.  To the point, no ISP should be
allowed to block Netflix.


>
>
> > 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 ;)
>

I'd say it's easier to predict capabilities than we're giving ourselves
credit for.  AI versions of DPI shaping types of content but also the
content itself... NN could be a reasonable tool to disallow AI manipulation
of internet flows...


>
>         [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)
>

I also agree.  there is a different from offering a shaped experience that
is transparent to the customer and offering an effective walled garden and
claiming it as internet access.  Sure, if google dropped fiber to your home
and said "here's a connection to google services" but never said internet
then that's fine, but that's also part of transparency.



>
> > 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 >= 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".
>

The biggest use case for the >=1G downloads is catering to gamers.  140GB
game updates are a reality now and full throttle that's ~20 minutes on a 1G
link.  These are often the experiences that gains you social media kudos.
 Gamers saying how fast their game downloads are is a big win for an ISP in
the 'advice for better internet' facebook posts.

very high (100M-1G) upload though... This is luxury but this means a lot
more practically for most people.  They can only really consume at xMbps
for video and a 50MB massive website and so on, but uploading their
onedrive and icloud ( this one in particular ) from their devices makes
that process seamless and saves their battery and makes their devices feel
faster because that background process is done far sooner.  When I moved up
from a 35M upload to a 800M FDX at home EVERYTHING feels smoother.  I had a
940x35M spectrum copper service and I finally got my home linked to my
network via mmwave.  Batteries last longer because radios aren't on as
much.   I honestly had never even considered how dramatically faster
uploads would impact 'non upload' things in my home.


> 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’t want to risk that).

To my knowledge, this really has never happened.  Low ISP speeds have never
been a topic on a ballot, nor any other industry that I can think of short
of US Steel and terrible labor conditions and STILL I don't think people
went to the polls over it.


>
> > Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or
> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be
> allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring
> to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal
> limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is
> within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may
> take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they
> can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company
> negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I
> would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup
> those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by
> competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old
> telephone lines.
>
>         [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal
> monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed
> capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for other
> companies to deploy their own network ...


In the US, there are virtually no natural monopolies in cities.  These are
all government created through franchising agreements and subsidies.   In
rural areas even more so these are not natural monopolies, they were
entirely funded by government money that created defacto monopolies because
they funded just one company to do it.  It's exactly what the current
funding is doing.  First come first serve, means for come gets the monopoly.

Basically, no telecom or ISP has innovated a new technology that they had
exclusive access to, so the only thing holding back competition is funding
or franchise/gov-monopoly rules.  I can build a docsis plant just as easily
as Comcast but I have to do it out of pocket and get a second cable
franchise which is explicitly banned in a lot of places.

It is orthogonal to NN *BUT* the creation of monopolies and removal of
competition is the cause driving the need for some sort of fair internet
access legislation whether that's a very pure NN or something else.  I'll
stand by my claim that making efforts to expand competition is best for
consumers as a baseline economic 'rule' and that in doing that, only
transparency rules need to be implemented and NN needs defined.


> ...  truncating for readability and time management
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain/attachments/20231003/d5493624/attachment.html>