" I don't see how it's a separate issue." One was "handled" by net neutrality regulations, the other was not.
Peering is one world, cache boxes are another world, transit and DIA are related but different and then consumer broadband is another world. All should be handled independently as they're all very different. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 9:02:40 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read ------ 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
