------ Original Message ------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: 11/27/2017 3:07:26 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read
I don't see
where he's blaming transit providers for anything.
See the paragraphs in the middle about Cogent.
The transit provider
was an example of a technical point that most of the public is unaware
of, but which complicates the discussion.
It complicates the discussion because it unnecessary conflates two
separate issues, last mile network neutrality and ASN interconnections.
If you want to talk about network neutrality, talk about network
neutrality. Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a
completely separate issue.
How traffic gets from the content provider to the end user is the issue,
isn't it? That typically involves 2-3 networks, if it's important how
the last network in the chain handles it, why is it not important how
the 1st, 2nd, or Nth network handles it? I don't see how it's a
separate issue.
It's also an example of a way
the open internet order could be completely circumvented.....get your
transit provider to do your traffic shaping. They're not an ISP so
they
don't count.
That's still a better end result than having the last mile ISP messing
with your packets. At least this way you know that if you manage to get
your packets onto the ISP's network then they won't f*** with them.
It's also quite unlikely that ISPs would collude with transit
providers to have them do their traffic shaping. The incentives simply
don't align. Far likelier is that the ISP would simply let their
transits run hot to create congestion.
You could be right. I was thinking along different lines.....like maybe
the provider upstream would want more than the ISP is willing to pay for
such a service. If the ISP wants that function performed, and the law
explicitly disallows the ISP while allowing the guys one level up to do
it, then they may inadvertently create a market for traffic shaping
among peers. You could even insert a peer into the path on purpose just
to do this for you.
Peering policies have their own problems, but that's a different
kettle of fish. It's no secret that if network neutrality gets sorted
out, some of the problems will move to interconnection issues.
The last sentence might contradict your earlier statements that it's a
separate issue.
Can you point out the straw man?
Oh, there are so many. Here's a random selection:
- people want more competition. Network neutrality doesn't bring about
more competition, so don't demand network neutrality.
- low value content will destroy the internet, don't demand network
neutrality
- all bits are equal is a dangerous idea, don't demand network
neutrality
- the Internet will cave in without SLAs on interconnects, don't
demand network neutrality
- two sided markets will magically solve everything. Ignore
termination monopolies, significant market power and don't demand
network neutrality
- no ISP will ever do anything anti-competitive, that's a crazy idea,
don't demand network neutrality
- networks are expensive, thus network neutrality should not be
imposed
A straw man argument is when the speaker re-states his opponent's case
in a way that makes it easier to argue against it. The speaker has
constructed the straw man so that he can destroy it easily. All but the
first of your examples are statements of the author's opinions, but
restated in ways that are easier to argue against. You are straw
manning the author of the article with your examples of his straw
manning. Can you re-state them in ways that illustrate how he is
misrepresenting his opponents?
I can see it with your first example, but not the others. Your first
example, "People want more competition" could be an example of straw
manning, because people in favor of the net neutrality rules aren't
really making an argument that it creates competition (that I've seen).
On the other hand, I went back and can't find any mention of competition
in the article. I didn't re-read the whole thing, but ctrl+f says the
words competition and compete are not present.
I want to restate that I think I'm mostly neutral on the topic. I don't
think removing the open internet order will have the effect that some
commenters seem to be saying. OTOH I also don't think the FCC Chairman
or certain large providers are being up front about why they want to
remove the rules. I have suspicions about why, but my suspicions are
mostly conjecture since these guys aren't really coming out and saying
anything very convincing. The Chairman was on TV arguing that we were
doing fine without the rules and therefore we don't need them, and that
seems to be all he's got.
The debate (on Facebook and Quora at least) annoys me to death because
most people on both sides are making a case in which an outcome is
claimed without building an effective case on how that outcome will come
about.
Actually, that's why politics in general annoy me. It seems to come
down to faith and ideology, which makes politics no better than a
religion.
-Adam
