Some points about NN that I don't see much discussion about:
An overwhelming majority of enforcement actions were against mobile
carriers, and I think the biggest dissent is coming from that direction
as well. Cell phone companies have a history of vertical integration
from the end user device up to the network edge. They also have less
bandwidth to work with and a shorter upgrade cycle as compared to a
cable or fiber network. They are being lumped in with other ISP's even
though their business is (historically) different and they come from a
different corporate culture. The 2015 order gives them a nod saying
their special needs will be considered in enforcement, but otherwise
they get the same rules. If I put myself in their shoes, I can see why
there would be resistance. Whether they're justified or not isn't my
point. All you have to do to see their side is reverse the roles and
imagine the FCC making rules that required you to behave like a cell
phone company.
I'm certain the open internet order doesn't hurt my employer. I'm
pretty sure it doesn't hurt most of you. The biggest issue I see with
keeping it is that we don't know where it will go from here. Title II
of the communications act gives the FCC a lot of power, which they said
would be exercised on ISP's with a light touch. What they said in 2015
doesn't say anything about what a future set of commissioners will do.
On the other hand, being considered Title II may be beneficial when
you're trying to get ROW access, pole attachments, and duct space. So
in that respect I think I'm benefiting from it now, and I worry about
getting rid of it.
I do not worry about any doom and gloom scenarios on either side. I
don't believe investment in networks will die if these rules stay in
place, and I don't believe that open access will die without them.
-Adam
------ Original Message ------
From: "Dennis Burgess" <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: 11/28/2017 8:56:16 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read
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
