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
>> 

Reply via email to