On May 10, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Michael Conlen <m...@conlen.org> wrote:
> If we ignore why and how the few high speed options exist for a moment and > accept that it's "the way it is," then it seems reasonable that the place to > put regulation is on them. At the same time cutting out middlemen is > generally good for everyone but the middlemen. > > My current opinion then is to let ISPs cut out the middlemen but ensure that > services which don't pay fees get reasonable access; regulate peering and > transit agreements (not just for access providers but across the board). ISPs > should be responsible to keep their links congestion free and have fair and > reasonable terms to connect to their networks. They can sell direct access to > their network to anyone as long as they aren't selling QoS. > > Comcast and Verizon can sell direct access to content providers but they > cannot degrade service as leverage in negotiations. > That set of regulations would be utterly impossible to meaningfully enforce because so much of it depends on subjective evaluation. The various law firms involved (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al.) would have a field day playing in the gray areas of any such set of rules, most likely creating a situation of exactly the opposite of what is intended. > A side effect would be that if peering agreements must be public and there > are stated terms for various types of peering many of the silky peering games > that get played and the silky peering disagreements that cause problems would > be more difficult. More likely, costs would go up for everyone for everything and the game wouldn’t change by all that much. > We could finally answer the age old question, "is company X a 'tier 1'. “ Since nobody has a real definition for “tier 1”, it’s a fairly meaningless question to begin with. (Yes, I am familiar with the alleged “does not pay for transit” definition, but I’ll point out that a completely disconnected network doesn’t pay for transit, either, but I doubt anyone would think they are a tier 1.) Owen > > -- > Mike > > >> On May 10, 2014, at 14:42, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patr...@ianai.net> wrote: >> >> Nice discussion about history & motivations. Not completely correct, but >> it's always fun to argue over history, and over motivations, since both are >> open to intepretation. >> >> Personally, I am interested in the future, and specifically in market-driven >> solutions to our problems. Call me a capitalist if you like, but I believe >> in a functioning market, we can get a very good approximation of "fair". >> >> If Company A and Company B have a mutual customer, and that customer needs >> both companies to perform a task, the market will find a way to make those >> two companies work together. Either that, or the customer will replace A or >> B, whichever the customer feels is underperforming, with Company C. >> >> We have that situation today. Streaming Company wants to send End User of >> Broadband Company some content. If Streaming Company sucks - not enough >> titles, lousy customer service, high price, poor performance, etc., etc. - >> End User is free to select Streaming Company 2. And contrary to popular >> belief, there are plenty of "Streaming Company 2s" available. Besides NF, >> there is Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, iPlayer, etc. They might have different >> models, but they all allow you to access streaming content, so choice is >> available. >> >> And here is where we get into the problem. Should End User believe Broadband >> Company sucks, they frequently cannot choose Broadband Company 2. I know I >> cannot, my choices are Comcast @ 100 Mbps or Verizon at 1.1 (yes, >> one-point-one) Mbps. So when Streaming Company sucks, but they suck because >> Broadband company is doing something I do not like, I cannot "vote with my >> wallet" and pick Broadband Company 2. I have no choice but to pick Streaming >> Company 2, even if I think the problem is Broadband Company's fault. (To be >> clear, I am not a NF subscriber - any more - and so this is not a NF/CC >> thing, I'm just talking generalities.) >> >> Put more succinctly, there is no functioning market. therefore there cannot >> be a market-based solution. >> >> Personally, I view that as about the most Un-American, Un-Capitalistic thing >> there is. >> >> Lots of people have suggested a simple, if very difficult, fix to this >> problem. Make the underlying physical infrastructure a regulated monopoly, >> i.e. a Utility. Then allow anyone to run services over that physical >> infrastructure. >> >> This is not pipe dream. The UK does it today. People there pick ISPs based >> on service, price, features, etc., not on "who paid off my local PUC". >> >> And before anyone brings up the whole "the UK is more dense than the US", I >> preemptively call BS. There is more choice, faster speeds, and lower prices >> in the middle of no-where UK than downtown manhattan. Please just leave that >> argument where it belongs, in the dung heap. >> >> Why can we not do something similar in the US? because the companies who own >> the lines have enough money to pay enough lobbyists to avoid even the >> promises they do make. (If anyone on this list is un-aware of things like >> the telcos promising ubiquitous high-speed BB years ago and never >> delivering, but never giving back their tax breaks or monopoly positions, >> you should be ashamed of yourselves.) >> >> But hey, a guy can dream, right? >> >> In the mean time, let's stop pretending that 'oh, L3 paid CC so they must be >> best friends'. L3 paid because They Had No Choice, and maybe because they >> see some long-term strategic benefit (e.g. they can charge others more >> later). >> >> This is not a functioning market. This is a few players with Market Power >> charging Rents, which any first year econ major will explain is a >> _very_very_very_ bad place for the market to be. >> >> -- >> TTFN, >> patrick >>
