Steve Coran could do both sides. Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 28, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Dennis Burgess <[email protected]> wrote: > > BTW, I am looking for someone that is pro NN and someone that is against it > to come on ISP radio. I can record you via phone or skype and then play it > back if needed, so you don't have to be on live .. > > Email me offlist if interested. > > > Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant > MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE > > For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net > Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com > Office: 314-735-0270 > E-Mail: [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 9:03 PM > To: [email protected] > 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 >
