<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=3 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Nnagain
[mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] <b><span style='font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, October 3, 2023
11:10 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Network Neutrality is back!
Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time!; rjmcmahon<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> Frantisek Borsik<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NNagain] On
"Throttling" behaviors</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Bob - <i><span style='font-style:italic'>"beyond FWA which is<span
class=gmail-apple-converted-space> </span>limited by physics and is energy
inefficient, a net negative to climate<span class=gmail-apple-converted-space> </span>mitigations"</span></i>
- why FWA should be energy inefficient and net negative to climate mitigation?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I know that I'm drifting this conversation off again, but I strongly
disagree with this statement.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><i><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic'>[RR] If by “this statement” you mean the claim that FWA is
energy inefficient compared to ANY “wired” connection, the laws of physics are
clear. Any energy sent that is NOT received is lost, and FWA “loses” orders of
magnitude more energy than any communication medium that confines the energy to
flow between a transmitter and a receiver. Therein, only radiative and
resistive loses matter, and they are again orders of magnitude less than RF
trasmissions trough the atmosphere. The path-loss models for both types of
media can be used to quantify the differences! </span></font></i></b><b><i><font
size=2 color=navy face=Wingdings><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Wingdings;color:navy;font-weight:bold;font-style:italic'>J</span></font></i></b><b><i><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy;font-weight:bold;font-style:italic'><o:p></o:p></span></font></i></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><i><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></i></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><i><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy;font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic'>RR </span></font></i></b><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br clear=all>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>All the best,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><font
size=3 color="#222222" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:#222222'>Frank<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><font
size=3 color="#222222" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:#222222'>Frantisek (Frank) Borsik<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><font
size=3 color="#222222" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:#222222'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><font
size=3 color="#222222" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:#222222'><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik"
target="_blank"><font color="#1155cc"><span style='color:#1155CC'>https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik</span></font></a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><font
size=3 color="#222222" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:#222222'>Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><font
size=3 color="#222222" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:#222222'>iMessage, mobile: +420775230885<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><font
size=3 color="#222222" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:#222222'>Skype: casioa5302ca<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><font
size=3 color="#222222" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
color:#222222'><a href="mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com" target="_blank"><font
color="#1155cc"><span style='color:#1155CC'>frantisek.borsik@gmail.com</span></font></a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:55 PM Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain <<a
href="mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net">nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;
margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Hi Bob,<br>
<br>
<br>
> On Oct 3, 2023, at 18:54, rjmcmahon <<a
href="mailto:rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com" target="_blank">rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> 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 natural monopoly
exists unrelated to a provider already having an infrastructure in place per
that monopoly.<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
> <br>
> The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> was pushed
in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out.<br>
<br>
[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 as
"never really tried", and not as we gave it an honest try but it fell
short. That 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.<br>
<br>
> 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 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
companies that will upgrade again (beyond FWA which is limited by physics and
is energy inefficient, a net negative to climate mitigations.)<br>
> <br>
> The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region>
railroads were natural monopolies. They were given massive land 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.<br>
> <br>
> Governments will respond to monopoly abuse after it occurs, not before.<br>
<br>
[SM] Indeed, that is often the case...<br>
<br>
> First, the infrastructure needs massive funding to be installed, however
that can get done. Municipal revenue bonds & networks sound nice in theory
but haven't worked over the last two decades. Time to try something different.<br>
<br>
[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 ;)<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Sebastian<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Bob<br>
> <br>
> <a
href="https://www.electrichybridvehicletechnology.com/news/charging-technology/us-to-build-its-first-ever-electric-road-that-wirelessly-charges-evs-as-they-drive.html"
target="_blank">https://www.electrichybridvehicletechnology.com/news/charging-technology/us-to-build-its-first-ever-electric-road-that-wirelessly-charges-evs-as-they-drive.html</a><br>
> <br>
>> Hi Colin,<br>
>>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <<a
href="mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>> 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’t invest in doing something new with attendant risks
unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the
alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some other
product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about
regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use of
potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the
Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything
resembling NN regulation.<br>
>> [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say
that who is selling<br>
>> internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to<br>
>> act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be<br>
>> insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not<br>
>> discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential<br>
>> innovations in any meaningful way.<br>
>>> 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.<br>
>> [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially
predictions about the future ;)<br>
>>> 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’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation and
cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been willing to install
Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of the country was
struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to
Google services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.<br>
>> [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have
been meaningful<br>
>> internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more<br>
>> general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that<br>
>> gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be<br>
>> without issues)<br>
>>> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then
considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.<br>
>> [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting
even though >= 1<br>
>> Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we<br>
>> still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above<br>
>> simple "more parallel" or "faster".<br>
>>> 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.<br>
>> [SM] This is purely speculative though, it might
as well had shown<br>
>> nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was<br>
>> so small as to be not representative of anything, no?<br>
>>> 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).<br>
>>> 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.<br>
>> [SM] The problem is that access networks often are
not legal<br>
>> monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed<br>
>> capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for<br>
>> other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can<br>
>> torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few<br>
>> customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss"
region for<br>
>> a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will<br>
>> always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that<br>
>> is inherent in the network's structure.<br>
>> One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access<br>
>> network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure.<br>
>> The idea would then be like in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Amsterdam</st1:place></st1:City>,
Zuerich and a few other<br>
>> places to have a local access network provider that in turn<br>
>> "concentrates" access links in <st1:place w:st="on">COs</st1:place>
local IXs where interested ISPs con<br>
>> connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network<br>
>> internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of<br>
>> the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en<br>
>> entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private<br>
>> entities are).<br>
>> This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN
concerns, and I am<br>
>> sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a<br>
>> small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my<br>
>> access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would<br>
>> operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is<br>
>> ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local<br>
>> government)<br>
>>> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20
year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and
showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We deem
the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided the
inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for
something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.<br>
>>> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected
monopolies are the problem,<br>
>> [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies
where nobody else is<br>
>> permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where<br>
>> the expected return of investment falls with the number of already<br>
>> existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of<br>
>> ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is<br>
>> still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an<br>
>> oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does<br>
>> not really deliver on its promises.<br>
>>> not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize
some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as
competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through
regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future
innovation.<br>
>> [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but
IMHO an oligopoly<br>
>> likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is<br>
>> where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the<br>
>> cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only<br>
>> need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy<br>
>> OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can<br>
>> start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.<br>
>>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another.
Cellular-based Internet is another.<br>
>> [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN
regulations, neither depended<br>
>> on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?<br>
>>> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it
under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because
they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the
dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the
innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.<br>
>> [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set
the stage for<br>
>> which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not,<br>
>> that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I<br>
>> really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future<br>
>> expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active<br>
>> discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).<br>
>> Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted
under most<br>
>> NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not<br>
>> the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an
"prioritize<br>
>> vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under
load"<br>
>> option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little,<br>
>> as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be<br>
>> subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves<br>
>> some innovation space available even for active discrimination.<br>
>> Regards<br>
>> Sebastian<br>
>>> Cheers,<br>
>>> Colin Higbie<br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Nnagain mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain"
target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Nnagain mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain"
target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Nnagain mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain" target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>