<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:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"
xmlns:ns1="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml">
<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"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--a:link
{mso-style-priority:99;}
span.MSOHYPERLINK
{mso-style-priority:99;}
/* 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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'>
<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;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
<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>Colin_Higbie via Nnagain<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, October 4, 2023
8:57 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Network Neutrality is back!
Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time!<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> Colin_Higbie<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NNagain] On
"Throttling" behaviors</span></font><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I
suspect we are all after similar long-term goals – open access to as many
people as possible with performance metrics that users appreciate (as opposed
to raw bandwidth marketing claims that can mask buffer bloat problems). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>What
I fear many here are missing in this discussion is the damage regulations
cause. There is an assumption in this response that humans can architect
rational legislation that will make things better. The preponderance of
evidence is that regulations don’t do that. They serve as a starting point for
a new bureaucracy that grows, taxes, and crushes innovation out of whatever is
being regulated. Because politics.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I
agree that there are cases where regulation is needed, because the market can’t
drive the same effect because it’s too easy to push the costs elsewhere (e.g.,
pollution). I agree that there are historic cases where regulations have helped
make things better (like with some public safety measures). <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] Especially where safety of life and property is
concerned. Lack of high quality internet access is generally not going to
result in death or disaster. Lack of sufficient spectrum to deploy (regulated)
life-saving technologies on the roads of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region> does result in death and
disaster. Just to give one example of where regulations are necessary. </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'> </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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>What
I urge is we recognize that there should be a very high bar for regulations. In
this case, where there is negligible evidence they are needed, we are nowhere
near that bar. Absent a critical need, we are better served, at least in the
long-run, in letting the market fight it out. This will no doubt lead to some
bad outcomes for some people, primarily investors who back the wrong horses,
but also some customers who end up with less performant connections. However,
that free-for-all drives things forward en-masse and the poor options die off.
That’s the product and service evolution, or Darwinism if you prefer, that
drives optimal outcomes.<font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></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] Yes, this may be true, however more often than not it’s
on the Darwinian evolutionary time scale … multiple generations which can translate
to a century or more. The problem is “amoral capitalism” and the havoc it can
wreak all for the sake of short-term profits. Here’s a simple example of what I
am talking about. Over 30 years ago a small company called Qualcomm was in
desperate need of a market for a technology that it believed it had the lion’s
share of IPR. It was called CDMA (aka IS-95/CDMA-2000). Through a number of
dubious business practices coupled with outright lies about CDMA’s capabilities,
they managed to “CON”-vince a large number of people in high places that CDMA
was the best technology for cellular, ever! It was all lies as it turns out. Qualcomm
is today a multi-billion dollar organization and CDMA is no longer around as a
cellular technology! Neither is Alcatel-Lucent, nor Motorola Infrastructure, nor
Nortel … all road kill while Qualcomm padded its bottom line with license and royalty
fees, a practice which continues to this day (but that’s a story for another
day</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'>). It is this debacle that explains why
the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region> is on par with <st1:place
w:st="on">Third World</st1:place> countries when it comes to low-cost,
ubiquitous, high-speed wireless data access for its citizens as is well-known!
The Europeans did not suffer this fate largely because the regulators made the
decision to stick with GSM and not go down the CDMA rathole. Good fortune …
maybe. Rational thinking based on verifiable technological arguments … most
likely. Will the <st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region>
ultimately join the rest of the <st1:place w:st="on">First World</st1:place>? …
yes … probably … but not before I am long gone </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'>L</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'> </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'>L</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><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> Faith
in someone’s intelligent design (no matter how good you think it is) will not
yield positive results, or at least not as positive in the long-run. Even if it
starts out well, it will get twisted by political horse trading and
bureaucratic control into something worse than you envision, never better.<font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></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] While I am very sympathetic to these
arguments/positions, simply relying on “the best man wins” only works well when
all the “men” in the game play by the same rules and as importantly, understand
that it is NOT a zero-sum game! </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'> </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'> Unfortunately, there are too
many examples to the contrary over the last 50 years and to think that going
forward this is going to change is how fools are defined … “those who do the
same thing over and over, expecting different results!” I do not know how to
teach corporate morality to large corporations. I do know that until they are
taught and adopt that philosophy, good luck letting the foxes in the henhouse,
and do not be surprised when the next “CDMA” debacle befalls us all! And lest
you think that it couldn’t possibly happen again, let me assure you that
another one is being perpetrated on us all right now, and those who did not
learn from this history are in the process of repeating it and tens of thousands
of lives are being lost every year, needlessly. <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'>Cheers,<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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Now,
if you want to talk about forming a voluntary organization to make technical
recommendations and perhaps standardize some language (like the Wi-Fi and USB
consortiums), I think that’s fine and would support that fully. If done well
(e.g., the latest USB C was not, with a lot of uncertainty around what USB C
means and unlabeled cables more than the connectors determining power delivery
capacity and bandwidth), the language around this and a standard means of
testing and communicating bandwidth, latency, buffer bloat, etc. assists the
better solutions to dominate in the market.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I
also support legislation specifically around busting the regional and local
monopoly contracts that cable companies use. Those currently prevent much of
the competition that I embrace as the rapid driver for commercial improvement. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Colin<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b> dan <dandenson@gmail.com> <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, October 3, 2023
5:41 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Network Neutrality is back!
Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time!
<nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> Sebastian Moeller
<moeller0@gmx.de>; Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [NNagain] On
"Throttling" behaviors<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>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 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>
relies on them for mediocre services.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
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:<br>
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.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>On
Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:26 PM Colin_Higbie 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-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Calibri><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Sebastian,<br>
<br>
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 that the big supporters
were the content providers and for obvious business reasons – they wanted to
get their content to customers for free.<br>
<br>
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 some
measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation. That in turn hurts
consumers in the end. <br>
<br>
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 have been as good
as open 20Mbps Internet access. I would probably feel the same 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 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 – 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 the better
value for customers. None of us as individuals (as much as Xi Jinping might
disagree) can out-predict the crowd-sourcing power and wisdom of the entire
free market.<br>
<br>
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 their 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 problems AND that
customers are too stupid to choose the service that's of value to them. <br>
<br>
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 one infused by a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.<br>
<br>
Tying that together with your point on the government policies protecting local
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 stop building
it out? Because they ran into too many localities who blocked them with
legislative and regulatory hurdles. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 say 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.<br>
<br>
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 and are rarely ever
retracted, better safe than sorry on this.<br>
<br>
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 favor of forcing
equal access. However, I also believe that the same regulations 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 occur 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. <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Colin<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Sebastian Moeller <<a href="mailto:moeller0@gmx.de" target="_blank">moeller0@gmx.de</a>>
<br>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM<br>
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this
time! <<a href="mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>><br>
Cc: Colin_Higbie <<a href="mailto:CHigbie1@Higbie.name">CHigbie1@Higbie.name</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors<br>
<br>
Hi Colin,<br>
<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>
> <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>
<br>
[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.<br>
<br>
<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>
<br>
[SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially
predictions about the future ;)<br>
<br>
<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>
<br>
[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)<br>
<br>
<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>
<br>
[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".<br>
<br>
<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>
<br>
[SM] This is purely speculative though, it might 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?<br>
<br>
> <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>
> <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>
<br>
[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. <br>
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).<br>
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)<br>
<br>
<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>
> <br>
> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are
the problem,<br>
<br>
[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.<br>
<br>
<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>
<br>
[SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but
IMHO an oligopoly 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.<br>
<br>
> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based
Internet is another.<br>
<br>
[SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations,
neither depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?<br>
<br>
<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>
<br>
[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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Sebastian<br>
<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Colin Higbie<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><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>
</body>
</html>