subject:"RE\: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay\-for\-play. \- The Washington Post"

On 14-04-25 00:57, Larry Sheldon wrote:

 In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that 
 existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power.

Egg of Chicken question. Did regulation arise because of marker failure
(monopoly, duopoly), did did regulation create monopolies ?

When cable cos started in canada (TV only), they went to the CRTC, as
part of obtaining their broadcasting licenses and demanded they be
granted monopoly status for the areas they served.  So fairly quickly,
the country was carved up into different territories, each served by a
single cable company (a couple of exceptions for border cases etc).

residential telephone was almost always a monopoly. There may have been
many different telcos, but each operated as the incumbent in its town.
The bigger guys ended up gobbling most of them over the years.


The probvlem of net neutrality does not reside in the internet itself.
The transit industry is a functioning markletplace with many competitors
and dynamic pricing pushing pricing towards costs.

The problem resides in the last mile which is controlled by incumbents.

The problem is that telcos and cablecos are becoming undifferentiated.
Cablecos offer telephony, and telcos offer TV distribution.

The difference is that not all telcos have advances and those still
stuck with old DSL are becoming irrelevant, leaving only a monopoly
cableco to serve customers.

And whenever 100% of facilities based last mile providers are more
interested in protecting their legacy TV assets, you get problems with
net neutrality, just as Comcast is doing to Netflix.

For large ISPs, Netflix provides caching appliances that can be inside
their network, so it is not a question of transit costs. It has
everything to do with a company that is heavily involved in TV, and
which controls the ISP market is such a large areas of USA wanting to
replace lost TV revenus by billing whoever is stealing those revenus.

In other words, they use their market power to hurt competitors. While
the FCC is getting the news, this should have gone to the FTC because it
is clearly an anti-competitive and predatory measure that proves Comcast
is using its market power to hurt competitors.


As a side note in Canada, the Competition Bureau (FTC in USA) is
getting involved with CRTC (FCC in USA) and submits into processes with
arguments on competition.


When there is a clear case of abuse of marlet power and anti-competive
practices, (such as Comcast vs Netflix) then government intervention is
not only warranted, it is essential.

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

On 14-04-27 02:23, Rick Astley wrote:

 Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that
 point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix
 would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get
 the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.

Netflix has no business paying Comcast. It offers caching appliances,
and CDN distribution which can be either inside Comcast's network, or
close enough to peer with.  So Netflix not only pays for its own
connection to the internet, but also manages to pay for transit right up
to major ISPs.

Comcast has no business billing its suppliers. It is in business to bill
its retail customers.

Now, if Netflix were to charge more to Comcast customers and make a note
of this before every program starts you are paying more because you are
on Comcast, you might see Comcast rethink its anti-competitive practice.

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

On 14-04-27 02:58, Hugo Slabbert wrote:

 Which I don't believe was a problem?  Again, outside looking in, but the 
 appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast was refusing to upgrade 
 capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was 
 doing the same.  So:


Funny how that problem was magically solved so rapidly the minute the
deal was inked. Seems to me like Comcast was rate limiting IP ranges and
removed the rate limit once the deal was inked. This was all about
politics/business, not about network management.

Also interesting how other ISPs have no problem with Netflix.

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian

So L3 and earlier, cogent peer settlement free with Comcast and Netflix
maxes out these peerings while they're there. What then?
On 28-Apr-2014 3:02 pm, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:

 On 14-04-27 02:23, Rick Astley wrote:

  Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if
 that
  point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix
  would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to
 get
  the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.

 Netflix has no business paying Comcast. It offers caching appliances,
 and CDN distribution which can be either inside Comcast's network, or
 close enough to peer with.  So Netflix not only pays for its own
 connection to the internet, but also manages to pay for transit right up
 to major ISPs.

 Comcast has no business billing its suppliers. It is in business to bill
 its retail customers.

 Now, if Netflix were to charge more to Comcast customers and make a note
 of this before every program starts you are paying more because you are
 on Comcast, you might see Comcast rethink its anti-competitive practice.

RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Brandon Butterworth

 $ContentProvider pays for transit sufficient to handle the traffic
 that their customers request.  $EyeballNetwork's customers pay it for
 internet access, i.e. to deliver the content that they request, e.g.
 from $ContentProvider.  That covers both directions here

But isn't the whole picture, there are other factors such as
$ContentProvider has to cover the cost of content, selling it vs their
competitors (as unlike $EyeballNetwork the $Customer has a choice of
who to use, and as everything on the net is free they may have a hard
time living off their paywall)

Even if a CDN cost $ContentProvider the exact same as
$EyeballNetwork thinks it should cost to deliver, $EyeballNetwork
would still want to be the one paid instead.

Who decides if $EyeballNetwork price is reasonable? There is no
incentive for them to be efficient, there is no competition - this
is partly why provider CDNs have failed, once you put your 50% of
internet traffic on their CDN they will not maintain their links to
other CDNs at similar capacity so you can never go back, prices will
stay high

The point of having disruptive technolgy and business models is that
they will disrupt and take us to a new, hopefully better, place. No
opt out if you happen to be the disruptee.

$EyeballNetwork should take care, if $ContentProvider is 50% of
their traffic and are being charged lots then $ContentProvider
may decide they can do the job better themselves and take over as
$EyeballNetwork (such as google fibre). Monopolies who want to remain
one should not incentivise new competitors.

While this is all open to be gamed disputes over perceived inequality
result leaving a mess so I can see why the FCC may decide there is no
solution other than let the market decide.

brandon

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Miles Fidelman


Larry Sheldon wrote:

On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:

If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.


I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.



They're not - but that can (and IMHO should) be changed.

Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Owen DeLong

 For large ISPs, Netflix provides caching appliances that can be inside
 their network, so it is not a question of transit costs. It has
 everything to do with a company that is heavily involved in TV, and
 which controls the ISP market is such a large areas of USA wanting to
 replace lost TV revenus by billing whoever is stealing those revenus.

The use of the word stealing here is offensive and inaccurate. It implies a
sense of entitlement to those revenues which is, IMHO, absurd.

It’s like political candidates who complain about third party candidates
“stealing their votes”. The votes don’t belong to the candidates, they belong
to the voters.

If $CABLECO wants to preserve their television revenues, they should do so
by providing a competitive product that is attractive to customers. If another
company is able to provide a more attractive product, then that’s how 
competition
and a free market is supposed to work.

What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing $CABLECO to
leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an operational
disadvantage in access for that competing product.

The so-called “internet fast lane” is a euphemism for allowing $CABLECO
to put competing video products into a newly developed slow-lane while
limiting the existing path to their own products and those content providers
that are able to and choose to pay these additional fees.

Once you follow the money trail to its logical conclusion, at its heart, it’s
the epitome of the kind of anti-competitive practices the Sherman act
was intended to prevent.

 In other words, they use their market power to hurt competitors. While
 the FCC is getting the news, this should have gone to the FTC because it
 is clearly an anti-competitive and predatory measure that proves Comcast
 is using its market power to hurt competitors.

This isn’t limited to $CABLECO. While they’re at the front of this effort, 
reality
is that if it succeeds, incumbents of all flavors will start using this tactic 
to
improve their revenues to the detriment of consumers.

Owen

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Niels Bakker

Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers 
continue with their crappy last mile


* jna...@gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you 
passed a law that says all content providers big and small must have 
settlement free access to the Internet paid for by residential 
subscribers what do you think it would do to the price of broadband?


Lower it?

Right now broadband providers pay a transit provider who then get paid 
by content providers to carry the bits, generally because broadband 
providers don't want to think about running IP networks because they 
their skills lie more in the television part of RF networks.


Content providers are offering to take out that middleman, bringing 
everybody's cost down.  Some broadband providers think they deserve 
more of a free ride than others.  It also happens that those broadband 
providers are generally already more expensive than their competitors.



-- Niels.

--

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
 * jna...@gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:

 If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
 law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free

 Lower it?

 Right now broadband providers pay a transit provider who then get paid
 by content providers to carry the bits, generally because broadband
 providers don't want to think about running IP networks because they
  their skills lie more in the television part of RF networks.

People are never gonna give this thread up, I see.  Easily one of the
longest threads in recent nanog history and I'm starting to see points
rehashed and strawmen trotted out.

Comcast sells wholesale transit -
http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true

And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated
requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.

http://www.comcast.com/peering

 Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and
 Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus
 outbound traffic. The network cost burden for carrying traffic
 between networks shall be similar to justify SFI

Now, that big elephant in the room taken into account, where do the
middlemen come in here?

--srs

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Phil Bedard

MSOs run expansive IP networks today, including national dark fiber DWDM
networks.  They all have way more people with IP expertise than they do RF
expertise. Even modern STBs use IP for many functions since they require
2-way communication, the last hold-out is your traditional TV delivery.
Even then most of the MSOs have IPTV installations in at least some
markets.  That pendulum tipped a long long time ago now.

Level3 actually had to pay Comcast the last time this all came around.
They gained Netflix as a customer, the ratios of traffic a transit
provider was sending to Comcast because way out of balance, and Level3
succumbed and paid.  Mainly since most of the traffic wasn't transit
traffic, it was Netflix traffic coming off Level3 CDNs.   Transit
providers have double-dipped forever when it comes to ingress/egress
traffic to their own customers.


-Phil



On 4/28/14, 9:05 AM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:

Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers
continue with their crappy last mile

* jna...@gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you
passed a law that says all content providers big and small must have
settlement free access to the Internet paid for by residential
subscribers what do you think it would do to the price of broadband?

Lower it?

Right now broadband providers pay a transit provider who then get paid
by content providers to carry the bits, generally because broadband
providers don't want to think about running IP networks because they
their skills lie more in the television part of RF networks.

Content providers are offering to take out that middleman, bringing
everybody's cost down.  Some broadband providers think they deserve
more of a free ride than others.  It also happens that those broadband
providers are generally already more expensive than their competitors.


   -- Niels.

--

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Phil Bedard

On 4/28/14, 9:23 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com wrote:



And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated
requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.

http://www.comcast.com/peering

 Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and
 Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus
 outbound traffic. The network cost burden for carrying traffic
 between networks shall be similar to justify SFI

Now, that big elephant in the room taken into account, where do the
middlemen come in here?

People seem to forget what Comcast is doing is nothing new. People have
been paying for unbalanced peering for as long as peering has been around.
It's a little different because Netflix doesn't have an end network
customer to bill to recoup those charges, they have customers on someone
else's network.  

It's not like all broadband providers are anti-Netflix, some are even
starting to include NF as an app on their STB.  There are also many who do
peer with Netflix settlement-free even with very unbalanced ratios.  The
key in the future is moving the bandwidth closer to the users, and we will
see more edge caching exist either within the broadband provider
facilities or at more localized 3rd party datacenters.

Phil

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Niels Bakker


* ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 15:27 CEST]:
Comcast sells wholesale transit - 
http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true


And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated 
requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.


How is that possibly realistic?  They have 22 million customers (soon 
to become 29) with wildly asymmetrical connections and a very typical 
consumption pattern.


Should Netflix change its apps that they upload an equal amount of 
bandwidth back to Netflix's servers to balance this out?  That way 
lies madness.


SBC had a much saner policy, from their 2006 SFI peering guidelines 
document: No requirement for a balanced traffic exchange ratio due 
primarily to the asymmetric nature of current broadband metallic 
transmission systems such as ADSL and cable modems. (Then ATT 
happened.)



Now, that big elephant in the room taken into account, where do the 
middlemen come in here?


Middlemen as in transit providers?  The world is larger than Comcast's 
coverage area so there is a very good market for your middlemen.



-- Niels.

--

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Jack Bates


On 4/28/2014 9:18 AM, Phil Bedard wrote:

People seem to forget what Comcast is doing is nothing new. People have
been paying for unbalanced peering for as long as peering has been around.
It's a little different because Netflix doesn't have an end network
customer to bill to recoup those charges, they have customers on someone
else's network.
Yeah. It's a scam. Comcast can't do balanced peering. Their customers 
are not symmetrical.



It's not like all broadband providers are anti-Netflix, some are even
starting to include NF as an app on their STB.  There are also many who do
peer with Netflix settlement-free even with very unbalanced ratios.  The
key in the future is moving the bandwidth closer to the users, and we will
see more edge caching exist either within the broadband provider
facilities or at more localized 3rd party datacenters.


Netflix is happy to assist with caching. The thing is, Comcast doesn't 
care about that. What they care about is that their last mile is getting 
saturated and they have to pay money to upgrade it. Costs are being 
shoved onto netflix and similar to justify that.


This is compared to the small ISP who is just happy to get a peering or 
cache to save money only on their transit fees.



Jack

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Doug Barton


On 04/27/2014 03:15 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

- Original Message -

From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca



But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge
network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to
Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really
anything more nuanced here than:

1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their
network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with.
(Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life).
2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market.
3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications
and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on.
4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with
the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy
their customers' usage.


You may be new here, but I'm not, and I read it exactly the same way.


How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more
traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I
have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or
add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I
missing something?


It is absolutely the problem of the eyeball carrier who gambled on a
given oversubscription ratio and discovered that it's called gambling
because sometimes, you lose.


+1

What I don't understand is why Netflix et al are not doing a PR campaign 
to explain this to the end users.


Doug

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Lamar Owen


On 04/27/2014 06:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

- Original Message -

From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca
I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly
been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the
links.

And the answer is: at whose instance (to use an old Bell term) is that
traffic moving.

The answer is at the instance of the eyeball's customers.

So there's no call for the eyeball to charge the provider for it.




Now, Jay, I don't often disagree with you, but today it occurred to me 
the business case here (I've had to put on my businessman's hat far too 
frequently lately, in dealing with trying to make a data center 
operation profitable, or at least break-even).  This should be taken 
more as a 'devil's advocate' post more than anything else, and if I 
missed someone else in the thread making the same point, my apologies to 
the Department of Redundancy Department.


Sure, the content provider is paying for their transit, and the eyeball 
customer is paying for their transit.  But the content provider is 
further charging the eyeball's customer for the content, and thus is 
making money off of the eyeball network's pipes.  Think like a 
businessman for a moment instead of like an operator.


Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as 
getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, by 
the way).  The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman 
in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of 
that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile 
network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be.  How many 
mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list?  Well, in this case 
it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer list.   The 
argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, disguising the 
real, profit-sharing, motive.

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Barry Shein


On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
  On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
   If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
   should lose common carrier protections.
  
  I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.

Here we go again!

There is more than one commonly used meaning for common carriers.

There is a Communications Common Carrier as defined in the US
Communications Act of 1934 regulated under the FCC and as subsequently
amended by...blah blah blah.

And there is the much older common law usage which can apply to
trains, planes, taxis, delivery services, stagecoaches, etc which
basically recognizes that in general many services engaged in COMMON
CARRIAGE.

They can't be assumed to know what (or who for that matter) they are
carrying for a fee -- when they don't. Obviously if one can prove they
did or should have known that's an exception.

So therefore shouldn't be assumed responsible for the contents if
illegal or whatever.

And not dragged into civil lawsuits if, e.g., someone claims that
carrying the package caused harm unless perhaps the carrier threw it
at the head of the recipient in which case they'd probably be
culpable.

Another requirement of a common law common carrier is that they
provide their service to the public without discrimination other than
ability to pay and whatever reasonable rules apply to everyone --
e.g., package can't be dripping liquid or weigh more than someone's
before picture in a nutrisystem ad.  The details of that of course
have been beaten to a fine powder in court cases and subsequent law
and regulation.

SO...an ISP (et al) can be considered a common law Common Carrier
without being a Common Carrier as defined in the Comm Act 1934 (and
subsequent, Telecom Act 1996, etc.)

ISPs don't in general have knowledge of the contents of the data they
carry except when you can prove that they did which is generally
assumed to be the exception or as a result of being served proper
notice.

  But I thought we agreed on all those terms in 1991 on the com-priv
  list? :-)

IANAL, if you mistake what I said for legal advice or accuracy you are
your own fool. But I don't have to be an animal expert to point out
y'all don't know the difference between a dog and a cat.

-- 
-Barry Shein

The World  | b...@theworld.com   | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool  Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Miles Fidelman


Barry Shein wrote:

On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
   On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
  
   I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.

Here we go again!

There is more than one commonly used meaning for common carriers.

There is a Communications Common Carrier as defined in the US
Communications Act of 1934 regulated under the FCC and as subsequently
amended by...blah blah blah.

And there is the much older common law usage which can apply to
trains, planes, taxis, delivery services, stagecoaches, etc which
basically recognizes that in general many services engaged in COMMON
CARRIAGE.


Common AND civil law, and the context within which the 1934 act defines 
telecommunications carriers.



Another requirement of a common law common carrier is that they
provide their service to the public without discrimination other than
ability to pay and whatever reasonable rules apply to everyone --
e.g., package can't be dripping liquid or weigh more than someone's
before picture in a nutrisystem ad.  The details of that of course
have been beaten to a fine powder in court cases and subsequent law
and regulation.

SO...an ISP (et al) can be considered a common law Common Carrier
without being a Common Carrier as defined in the Comm Act 1934 (and
subsequent, Telecom Act 1996, etc.)


And that is the key to all this bunkum about network neutrality - it's 
an issue only because the FCC has made the choice not to treat ISPs (or 
more precisely IP transport providers) as common carriers, but as 
information service providers.


The recent Supreme Court decisions seems to have implied that the FCC 
has the power to, under current law, to define IP carriers as common 
carriers, and impose the obligations of common carriage on them.  (Note 
that this does NOT immediately imply that the FCC would have to apply 
all the regulations and procedures typically associates with, say, 
telephone carriers.)


All the FCC really has to do is promulgate a rule saying IP transport 
is common carriage - and network neutrality would become a non-issue.


Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Jack Bates


On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:


Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it 
as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, 
by the way).  The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the 
businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get 
a piece of that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my 
last-mile network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be.  How 
many mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list?  Well, in 
this case it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer 
list.   The argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, 
disguising the real, profit-sharing, motive.




However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for 
video. In addition, they may be losing more video subscribers due to 
netflix. In reality, Netflix is direct competition to Comcast's video 
branch.



Jack

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Lamar Owen


On 04/28/2014 02:23 PM, Jack Bates wrote:

On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:


Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it 
as getting a piece of the action


However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for 
video. In addition, they may be losing more video subscribers due to 
netflix. In reality, Netflix is direct competition to Comcast's video 
branch.



That's exactly right.  But it somehow sounds better to blame it on the 
bandwidth consumed.

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Miles Fidelman


Jack Bates wrote:

On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:


Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it 
as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS 
episodes, by the way).  The network op in me thinks double-dipping; 
the businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need 
to get a piece of that profit, since that profit cannot be made 
without my last-mile network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if 
need be.  How many mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer 
list?  Well, in this case it's actual connectivity to customers, not 
just a customer list.   The argument about traffic congestion is just 
a strawman, disguising the real, profit-sharing, motive.




However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for 
video. In addition, they may be losing more video subscribers due to 
netflix. In reality, Netflix is direct competition to Comcast's video 
branch.


Which is why many policy oriented folks urge separation of content from 
carriage - i.e., you can't be in both businesses, or at least there 
needs to be a Chinese wall between the two  businesses - otherwise the 
edge providers have both an inherent conflict of interest and a position 
that allows for monopoly abuse.


The original FCC Computer Inquiry II proscribed just such a separation 
for the Internet business - but defined the line as being between local 
loop (e.g., copper) and information services - and defined IP 
transport as an information service.  Great if you're trying to 
protect the nascent Internet carriers from abuse by Ma Bell (though just 
try to buy an unbundled local loop these days); not so great for 
protecting Internet content providers from broadband carriers.


Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Hugo Slabbert


The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman
in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of
that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile
network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be.


...which turns the eyeball network provider into a gatekeeper.  I think
the clearest comment on this so far has been from Kristopher Doyen in the What 
Net Neutrality should and should not cover thread, which goes into players 
abusing their position in the market to extract additional revenue with stuff 
like this.


Packets are packets are packets; aside from a sense of entitlement, why should 
the eyeball network provider get a piece of the action simply because the 
packets are revenue-generating for a 3rd party?  This incurs a massive 
additional barrier to entry for any business that depends on the internet for 
their income, as now their revenue has to not only cover their own overhead and 
profits but also need to fund additional profits for ANY eyeball network 
provider that believes they're entitled to a piece of the action.  Why should 
I subsidize your business?


E.g. I sell a widget on my website.  An eyeball network provider's customer 
visits my website to purchase some widgets.  Hey, says eyeball network 
operator, you're making money off of packets traversing my network! Pay up!


I know I've shifted this a bit from revenue-generating streaming content to a 
generic e-commerce situation, but how is that different except for the scale of 
traffic?  If the eyeball network provider sees fit to charge Netflix $x/Gbps 
because of the $y/Gbps that Netflix is making from that traffic, the call on 
when to charge rests solely with the eyeball network operator.  If my widget 
ecommerce store makes $1000y/Gbps because the traffic is small but revenue 
high, getting a piece of the action could mean $1000x/Gbps because there is 
more value per packet.


--
Hugo

On Mon 2014-Apr-28 10:05:06 -0700, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:

On 04/27/2014 06:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

- Original Message -

From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca
I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly
been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the
links.

And the answer is: at whose instance (to use an old Bell term) is that
traffic moving.

The answer is at the instance of the eyeball's customers.

So there's no call for the eyeball to charge the provider for it.




Now, Jay, I don't often disagree with you, but today it occurred to me
the business case here (I've had to put on my businessman's hat far too
frequently lately, in dealing with trying to make a data center
operation profitable, or at least break-even).  This should be taken
more as a 'devil's advocate' post more than anything else, and if I
missed someone else in the thread making the same point, my apologies to
the Department of Redundancy Department.

Sure, the content provider is paying for their transit, and the eyeball
customer is paying for their transit.  But the content provider is
further charging the eyeball's customer for the content, and thus is
making money off of the eyeball network's pipes.  Think like a
businessman for a moment instead of like an operator.

Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it as
getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes, by
the way).  The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman
in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of
that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile
network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be.  How many
mail-order outfits won't charge for a customer list?  Well, in this case
it's actual connectivity to customers, not just a customer list.   The
argument about traffic congestion is just a strawman, disguising the
real, profit-sharing, motive.





signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

On 14-04-28 09:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

 Comcast sells wholesale transit -
 http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true
 
 And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated
 requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.


Analysing the effects of vertical integration is often best done by
running structural separation scenarios.

Netflix does not give content to Comcast-transit, it gives it to
Comcast-ISP, this is especially true of cases where a network cache
server is installed inside Comcast-ISP network.

If Comcast-ISP told Netflix to install cache servers at one location,
and then Comcast-ISP uses Comcast-transit to distribute content to all
the cities it serves, it should be Comcast-ISP paying Comcast-transit
for that service.

It could just as well have installed the netflix appliance in every
major city and not have to purchase transit from Comcast-transit.

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-28 Thread Larry Sheldon


On 4/28/2014 12:32 PM, Barry Shein wrote:


On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
   On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
  
   I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.

Here we go again!

There is more than one commonly used meaning for common carriers.


Please list only the meanings that involve protections that should be 
removed.




--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

How is this *not* Comcast's problem?  If my users are requesting more
traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
capacity to handle that?  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add
ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.  Am I missing
something?

Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that
point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix
would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get
the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if
Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or
should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for
those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't
basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I
couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the
position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once
that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment
for delivering it so there is no double billing.

This diagram best describes the relationship (ignoring pricing):
http://www.digitalsociety.org/files/gou/free-and-paid-peering.png

Content provider would be Netflix and Comcast would be Broadband ISP 1.




On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.cawrote:

 Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct
 me if I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap.  With
 Comcast/Netflix being in the mix and by association Cogent in the
 background of that there's obviously room for some heated opinions, but
 here goes anyway...

 A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had
 thought
 to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network
 providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry
 yours
 and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under
 modern realities.

 I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had collapsed.  Not saying
 it's the only way, but she ain't dead yet.

 Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes
 settlement-free peering viable:
 The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was
 sending to the other was roughly equivalent.

 ...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix
 needs to buck up:
 Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge
 amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with
 sufficient quality.

 But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge
 network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to
 Comcast users the traffic that they requested.  Is there really anything
 more nuanced here than:

 1.  Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network
 according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with.  (Nothing wrong
 here; oversubscription is a fact of life).
 2.  Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market.
 3.  Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and
 suck in more data than Comcast was betting on.
 4.  Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the
 heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their
 customers' usage.

 How is this *not* Comcast's problem?  If my users are requesting more
 traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
 capacity to handle that?  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add
 ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.  Am I missing
 something?

 Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent  shift towards
 double dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized Open
 Internet rules don't help on that front.  Now, Comcast is free to leverage
 their customers as bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's
 line of encouraging his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting
 here.  Basically this doesn't harm me directly at this point.  Considering
 the lack of broadband options for large parts of the US, though, it seems
 that end users are getting the short end of the stick without any real
 recourse while that plays out.

 --
 Hugo

 
 From: NANOG nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of Larry Sheldon 
 larryshel...@cox.net
 Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
 enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

 h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian

 FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality

 http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/

 Forward!  On to the next windmill, Sancho!
 --
 Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics

RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread Hugo Slabbert


 ...but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast...

Which, from the outside, does appear to have been the case.

 ...then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to 
 Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.

Which I don't believe was a problem?  Again, outside looking in, but the 
appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast was refusing to upgrade 
capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was doing 
the same.  So:
 I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add ports on my side; you upgrade 
 or add ports on your side.


 The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to 
 get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I think it 
 should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair market rate and 
 the price doesn't basically amount to extortion.

Are we talking here about transport between Netflix's POPs and Comcast's?  I 
definitely don't expect Comcast to foot the bill for transport between the two, 
and if Netflix was asking for that I'm with you that would be out of line.  If 
there are existing exchange points, though, would it not be reasonable to 
expect each side to up their capacity at those points?


 Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives 
 payment for delivering it so there is no double billing.

The double-dip reference was to charging both the content provider and the 
ISP's own customer to deliver the same bits.  If the traffic from Netflix was 
via Netflix's transit provider and Comcast then again was looking to bill 
Netflix to accept the traffic, we'd hit double billing.

I guess that's the question here:  If additional transport directly been POPs 
of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the links.  Releases 
around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering was happening at IXs 
(haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem reasonable 
for each party to handle their own capacity to the peering points and call it 
even.  No?

--
Hugo


From: Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:23 PM
To: Hugo Slabbert
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could 
enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

How is this *not* Comcast's problem?  If my users are requesting more traffic 
than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to 
handle that?  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add ports on my side; 
you upgrade or add ports on your side.  Am I missing something?

Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that 
point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix would 
be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get the data 
at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if Comcast 
permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or should they 
be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for those links as 
long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to 
extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I couldn't tell you one way or 
the other aside from I disagree with the position Netflix seems to be taking 
that they simply must be free. Once that traffic is given directly to comcast 
no other party receives payment for delivering it so there is no double billing.

This diagram best describes the relationship (ignoring pricing): 
http://www.digitalsociety.org/files/gou/free-and-paid-peering.png

Content provider would be Netflix and Comcast would be Broadband ISP 1.




On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Hugo Slabbert 
hslabb...@stargate.camailto:hslabb...@stargate.ca wrote:
Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if 
I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap.  With Comcast/Netflix being 
in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's 
obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway...

A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thought
to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network
providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry yours
and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under
modern realities.

I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had collapsed.  Not saying it's 
the only way, but she ain't dead yet.

Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes 
settlement-free peering viable:
The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was sending 
to the other was roughly equivalent.

...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix needs to 
buck up:
Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge 
amounts of

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread Lee

On 4/26/14, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
 h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian

 FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality

 http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/

Why isn't it as simple as I'm paying my ISP to deliver the bits to me
and Netflix is paying their [cdn?] provider to deliver the bits to me.
 Netflix is already paying their provider to deliver the bits to me,
so why do they have to also pay my ISP to deliver the bits to me?


It seems the FCC is on a roll - not only giving up on net neutrality
but building up the local monopoly:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0423/DOC-326703A1.txt

  The concept of targeting subsidies for broadband and voice service
to pockets of rural America where they are needed most is central to
the FCC's 2011 reforms. Later this year, price cap carriers will be
given the opportunity to accept Connect America Fund support in high
cost areas based on detailed local cost estimates, calculated by a
cost model. Incumbent carriers must choose to accept or decline the
offer of support for all entire high-cost locations they serve in a
given state; if they decline, the subsidies will be made available to
other providers, awarded through a Phase II competitive bidding
process.

Why do the incumbent carriers get the right of first refusal for
subsidies?  They're the ones that haven't served their local
population so it seems like they should be the *last* to be offered
subsidies.

Lee


 Forward!  On to the next windmill, Sancho!
 --
 Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
  of System Administrators:
 Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
  learn from their mistakes.
(Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

If it were through a switch at the exchange it would be on each of them to
individually upgrade their capacity to it but at the capacities they are at
it they are beyond what would make sense financially to go over an exchange
switch so they would connect directly instead. It's likely more along the
lines of needing several 100G ports as Netflix is over 30% of peak usage
traffic in North America:

Netflix (31.6%) holds its ground as the leading downstream application in
North America and together with YouTube (18.6%) accounts for over 50% of
downstream traffic on fixed networks.  (source
https://www.sandvine.com/trends/global-internet-phenomena/ )

That amount of data is massive scale. I don't see it as double dipping
because each party is buying the pipe they are using. I am buying a 15Mbps
pipe to my home but just because we are communicating over the Internet
doesn't mean the money I am paying covers the cost of your connection too.
You must still buy your own pipe in the same way Netflix would. I covered
this scenario in more detail in my post What Net Neutrality should and
should not cover but if you expand on the assumption that paying for an
internet connection also pays for the direct connection of every party who
you exchange traffic with then you have a scenario where only half the
people connected to the Internet should have to pay at all for their
connection because any scenario where people simply buy their own pipe
would be considered double billing.

The cost for residential broadband is high enough in the US without a
policy like that in place. If there is one policy that would keep poor
families from being able to afford broadband it would be that one.





On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.cawrote:


  ...but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and
 Comcast...

 Which, from the outside, does appear to have been the case.

  ...then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity
 to Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.

 Which I don't believe was a problem?  Again, outside looking in, but the
 appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast was refusing to upgrade
 capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was
 doing the same.  So:
  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add ports on my side; you
 upgrade or add ports on your side.


  The argument at hand is if Comcast permitted to charge them for the
 links to get to their network or should they be free/settlement free. I
 think it should be OK to charge for those links as long as its a fair
 market rate and the price doesn't basically amount to extortion.

 Are we talking here about transport between Netflix's POPs and Comcast's?
  I definitely don't expect Comcast to foot the bill for transport between
 the two, and if Netflix was asking for that I'm with you that would be out
 of line.  If there are existing exchange points, though, would it not be
 reasonable to expect each side to up their capacity at those points?


  Once that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives
 payment for delivering it so there is no double billing.

 The double-dip reference was to charging both the content provider and
 the ISP's own customer to deliver the same bits.  If the traffic from
 Netflix was via Netflix's transit provider and Comcast then again was
 looking to bill Netflix to accept the traffic, we'd hit double billing.

 I guess that's the question here:  If additional transport directly been
 POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the links.
  Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering was happening
 at IXs (haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that point it would seem
 reasonable for each party to handle their own capacity to the peering
 points and call it even.  No?

 --
 Hugo

 
 From: Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com
 Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:23 PM
 To: Hugo Slabbert
 Cc: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
 enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

 How is this *not* Comcast's problem?  If my users are requesting more
 traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
 capacity to handle that?  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add
 ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.  Am I missing
 something?

 Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that
 point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix
 would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get
 the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if
 Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or
 should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for
 those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread Barry Shein


What are any of you talking about? Have you even bothered to read for
example the wikipedia article on monopoly or are you so solipsistic
that you just make up the entire universe in your head? Do you also
pontificate on quantum physics and neurosurgery when the urge strikes
you???

Sorry but this discussion is so, uneducated, usage of terms which are
not as they are defined in the English or any other language, etc.

BOLD

But what do you think about the FCC's efforts in regard to net
neutrality?

/BOLD

Do you agree with CNBC's assessment that the internet has a fast
lane and up until now FCC regulations prevented consumers and content
providers from using it under the guise of net neutrality.

Do you believe there's anything at stake here for you beyond just
nattering about your own personal and peculiar notion of what a
monopoly is? Does that really matter to any of this?

I almost believe that this entire flame war on the definition of
monopoly is being fanned by sockpuppets whose job it is to make sure
no one here talks about net neutrality in any effective or at least
meaningful way.

  http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607254

  F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround,
  Plans to Allow Fast Lane

  The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that
  allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through
  which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a
  content company is willing to pay for it, according to people
  briefed on the proposals.

  ...

Would someone please define this fast lane for me? That would be a
really good start. Preferably the managers of that fast lane because
they surely must be on this list...no?


P.S. CNBC is owned by Comcast (or more specifically NBC Universal,
which is owned by Comcast.)

-- 
-Barry Shein

The World  | b...@theworld.com   | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool  Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread Phil Bedard

The Fast Lane perhaps starts as not counting traffic against metered
byte caps, similar to what ATT did on their mobile network.  If the
content/service provider is willing to pay the provider, then the users
may not pay overage fees or get nasty letters anymore when they exceed
data caps.  The second and more contentious part of it is using QoS to
guarantee the content/service provider's traffic is delivered, at the
expense of traffic from those who aren't paying.  So if Netflix decides to
pay and Amazon Prime doesn't, well Netflix will make it to your house and
Prime might not.  Right now everyone's traffic gets dropped equally. :)
(Well more Netflix because there is a lot more of it).


-Phil (all opinions are my personal opinions)




On 4/27/14, 1:44 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:


What are any of you talking about? Have you even bothered to read for
example the wikipedia article on monopoly or are you so solipsistic
that you just make up the entire universe in your head? Do you also
pontificate on quantum physics and neurosurgery when the urge strikes
you???

Sorry but this discussion is so, uneducated, usage of terms which are
not as they are defined in the English or any other language, etc.

BOLD

But what do you think about the FCC's efforts in regard to net
neutrality?

/BOLD

Do you agree with CNBC's assessment that the internet has a fast
lane and up until now FCC regulations prevented consumers and content
providers from using it under the guise of net neutrality.

Do you believe there's anything at stake here for you beyond just
nattering about your own personal and peculiar notion of what a
monopoly is? Does that really matter to any of this?

I almost believe that this entire flame war on the definition of
monopoly is being fanned by sockpuppets whose job it is to make sure
no one here talks about net neutrality in any effective or at least
meaningful way.

  http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607254

  F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround,
  Plans to Allow Fast Lane

  The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that
  allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through
  which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a
  content company is willing to pay for it, according to people
  briefed on the proposals.

  ...

Would someone please define this fast lane for me? That would be a
really good start. Preferably the managers of that fast lane because
they surely must be on this list...no?


P.S. CNBC is owned by Comcast (or more specifically NBC Universal,
which is owned by Comcast.)

-- 
-Barry Shein

The World  | b...@theworld.com   |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR,
Canada
Software Tool  Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread Bob Evans

Everyone interested in how this plays out today, can read Bill Norton's
Internet Peering book.  While some say situations didn't happen this way
or it happened that way doesn't really matter. What is clear and matters
is the tactics/leverage backbones and networks use against each other in
trading traffic are very real and explained well.

These situations are one of the reasons I helped Coresite (AKA old
CRGwest) build Any2 Peering.

Amazon now has a kindle edition of the latest for just $10. Paper version
is like $50-$100.
The 2014 Internet Peering Playbook: Connecting to the Core of the Internet
[Kindle Edition]
William B. Norton (Author).

 Bob Evans
 CTO
 Fiber Internet Center
 Fiber International
 MTI Corporation


 The Fast Lane perhaps starts as not counting traffic against metered
 byte caps, similar to what ATT did on their mobile network.  If the
 content/service provider is willing to pay the provider, then the users
 may not pay overage fees or get nasty letters anymore when they exceed
 data caps.  The second and more contentious part of it is using QoS to
 guarantee the content/service provider's traffic is delivered, at the
 expense of traffic from those who aren't paying.  So if Netflix decides to
 pay and Amazon Prime doesn't, well Netflix will make it to your house and
 Prime might not.  Right now everyone's traffic gets dropped equally. :)
 (Well more Netflix because there is a lot more of it).


 -Phil (all opinions are my personal opinions)




 On 4/27/14, 1:44 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:


What are any of you talking about? Have you even bothered to read for
example the wikipedia article on monopoly or are you so solipsistic
that you just make up the entire universe in your head? Do you also
pontificate on quantum physics and neurosurgery when the urge strikes
you???

Sorry but this discussion is so, uneducated, usage of terms which are
not as they are defined in the English or any other language, etc.

BOLD

But what do you think about the FCC's efforts in regard to net
neutrality?

/BOLD

Do you agree with CNBC's assessment that the internet has a fast
lane and up until now FCC regulations prevented consumers and content
providers from using it under the guise of net neutrality.

Do you believe there's anything at stake here for you beyond just
nattering about your own personal and peculiar notion of what a
monopoly is? Does that really matter to any of this?

I almost believe that this entire flame war on the definition of
monopoly is being fanned by sockpuppets whose job it is to make sure
no one here talks about net neutrality in any effective or at least
meaningful way.

  http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607254

  F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround,
  Plans to Allow Fast Lane

  The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that
  allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through
  which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a
  content company is willing to pay for it, according to people
  briefed on the proposals.

  ...

Would someone please define this fast lane for me? That would be a
really good start. Preferably the managers of that fast lane because
they surely must be on this list...no?


P.S. CNBC is owned by Comcast (or more specifically NBC Universal,
which is owned by Comcast.)

--
-Barry Shein

The World  | b...@theworld.com   |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR,
Canada
Software Tool  Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread Matthew Petach

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:

 Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can
 charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?

 In a normal free market, if two companies with a mutual consumer have a
 tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one
 broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I
 cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I
 MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can
 choose.



[I speak only for myself here; any use of the word we
should be taken to represent only my sense of inclusion
with the rest of humanity, and not with any commercial
entity or organization.  Any other characterization of the
following words is patently incorrect, and grounds for
possible actions, up to and including litigation.  Please
don't be an ass, and quote me out of context, or as
representing something I'm not.  Original post edited
slightly, with specific entity names replaced with
variables; you may do your own substitution back
into the variables as you feel appropriate.  --MNP]


What if we turn the picture around slightly, and look
at it like the negotiations between broadcast networks
and cable companies?  2010's battle between Fox television
and  cablevision comes to mind, where the content holder
blacked out access to their content for specific cable
companies unless they agree to pay the demanded fees.

It would be interesting to have seen $content_CEO take a
hard line stance; it wouldn't be hard to send a BGP feed
to video streaming servers, and if the requestor's IP was
from a prefix seen behind AS$foo, put up a message
informing the subscriber that their access to $company's
content would cease on such-and-such a date, due
to $BB_provider's unwillingness to agree to increase
interconnect capacity, and that if subscribers wished
to continue to see $company's content, they should consider
switching to a different network provider.  Basically,
follow the same model News Corp used against
Cablevision, Viacom used against Time Warner,
or Disney used against Cablevision.

How long would $BB_provider be able to hold out against
the howls of its users, if there was a scrolling
banner across the top of the screen during their
favorite show, or favorite movie alerting them that
they would soon be unable to see that content
unless they switched to a different service provider?

It's easy to forget that the sword can be swung both
ways.   Right now, $BB_provider is swinging the sharp edge
at $content; but $content is not without its own influence in
the market, and could swing the sword the other way,
cutting back at $BB_provider.  Yes, it comes at some great
risk to $content, in terms of potential customer loss; but
no great wins come without great risks (unless you
cheat, and use the government to get you a big win
at no risk--but none of us like that model).

I think it's high time for content players to flex their
power, and push back on the eyeball networks that
attempt to use their customer base as hostages to
extract additional revenue from the content being
requested by their users.  If the content providers
simply make it clearly visible to the end users that
they cannot watch the requested content on that
network, or that they can only watch in reduced
resolution from that network, it will have a two-fold
effect: a) traffic volume from the content provider
to the contentious network will be reduced, limiting
the need for the upgrades in the first place, and
b) customers of the provider will be informed of
their status as hostage cannon fodder on the
battlefield, allowing them to vote with their wallets.
One could potentially even insert suggestions
for alternate connectivity options they might
consider into the content feed, to help the
users vote with their wallets more easily.
Or, provide the phone number of the local
municipal office that granted the franchise
rights to the BB provider, along with instructions
on what to say when calling (Hi--I'm a registered
voter in your district.  If you'd like to get re-elected
next term, you need to repeal the cable franchise
agreement with broadband provider such-and-so,
as their monopolistic practices are hampering
my ability to freely choose what content I can
consume.)

We're not powerless in this fight.  We often take
a victim mindset, and look for some other entity
to rescue us; but that's not the right way to thrive.
Instead of thinking that we're weak, we're victims,
and can't protect ourselves, or that we need some
other big, strong entity to shelter and protect us,
we need to realize that we *are* strong.  We *are*
capable of standing up and fighting back.  We *do*
have power, and can say no to the bullies.

They want us to feel we have no say in the matter,
that we cannot survive without protection.

But they are wrong.

We are strong.
We are capable.
We *can* fight back.

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread Justin M. Streiner


On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote:


That amount of data is massive scale. I don't see it as double dipping
because each party is buying the pipe they are using. I am buying a 15Mbps
pipe to my home but just because we are communicating over the Internet
doesn't mean the money I am paying covers the cost of your connection too.
You must still buy your own pipe in the same way Netflix would. I covered
this scenario in more detail in my post What Net Neutrality should and
should not cover but if you expand on the assumption that paying for an
internet connection also pays for the direct connection of every party who
you exchange traffic with then you have a scenario where only half the
people connected to the Internet should have to pay at all for their
connection because any scenario where people simply buy their own pipe
would be considered double billing.


The size of the pipes involved doesn't change the fundamental premise that 
double-dipping is involved.  Comcast, et al want to be paid twice for the 
same traffic.  The money I pay Verizon every month for my Fios 
connection, by itself, doesn't pay for the rest of their network, but 
take the millions of Fios customers as a whole, and the revenue stream 
is significant.  We'll leave the government-mandated revenue stream 
out of the equation for now.  Just about every ISP, and certainly all of 
the big ones, practice statistical multiplexing - there is always some 
amount of oversubscription at play.  Add up the subscription speeds of 
every Fios customer, and the total ingress/egress capacity of Verizon's 
network, and the two numbers will not be equal - not by a long shot.


While 100G linecards and optics are still very expensive, those costs will 
come down over time.  Even at that, the cost of adding a 100G link between 
Big Network A and Big Network B is at most pennies per customer.


jms

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post


On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

 On 4/26/2014 3:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
 On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
 wrote:
 
 Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
 
 This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN protect
 monopolies, but that’s not always the outcome.
 
 Monopolies absolutely can persist without regulation. Except in the
 most highly dense population areas, there is not a sufficient market
 to support the deployment of more than one copy of a given media type
 to that population. As a result, there is, in most places, a natural
 monopoly in each media type, whether that’s electrical, water, cable,
 twisted pair, fiber, etc.
 
 Sounds like the market at work, not monopoly power..I've never heard the 
 term monopoly used where the market contains all the players that want to 
 play.

It doesn’t. What it contains is all the players that can afford to play.

When the number of players that can afford to play==1 that’s pretty much the 
definition of monopoly.

If you want to try and pervert the term to meet your previous (bizarre) claims, 
then I’m sure you can do enough dancing around the dictionary to eventually 
arrive at your chosen destination.

However, Patrick and I are more concerned with the actual outcome for consumers 
(including ourselves) than with the sophistry required to engage in the 
discussion you appear to want to have.

Owen

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

The comments on the article are FAR more useful than the article itself.

Owen

On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

 h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
 
 FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
 
 http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/
 
 Forward!  On to the next windmill, Sancho!
 -- 
 Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
 Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

- Original Message -
 From: Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com

 I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --
 
 Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited

There is a SIP error that amounts to this; 480, I think. 

Though, of course, when I had a carrier who wouldn't complete calls cause
they didn't like my balance, did they *use* that code?

No, of course not.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

- Original Message -
 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com

 In my neighborhood, Comcast has a monopoly on coax cable tv and HFC
 internet services. There are no regulations that support that
 monopoly. Another company could, theoretically, apply, receive
 permits, and build out a second cable system if they wanted to.
 However, the population density is such that even if that company
 captured 50% of the market, it would merely make the market
 economically unviable for both companies.
 
 In such instances, you do indeed have “natural monopolies” which are
 an economic construct, not a regulatory artifact.

And if this were not true, Verizon wouldn't have agitated to get it made
illegal in 19 states for the local municipality to be the owner of that
natural monopoly transport network; see also my month long thread on 
that topic and it's second and third order resultants in late 2012.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

- Original Message -
 From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca

 But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge
 network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to
 Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really
 anything more nuanced here than:
 
 1. Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their
 network according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with.
 (Nothing wrong here; oversubscription is a fact of life).
 2. Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market.
 3. Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications
 and suck in more data than Comcast was betting on.
 4. Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with
 the heavy inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy
 their customers' usage.

You may be new here, but I'm not, and I read it exactly the same way.

 How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more
 traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I
 have capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or
 add ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I
 missing something?

It is absolutely the problem of the eyeball carrier who gambled on a
given oversubscription ratio and discovered that it's called gambling 
because sometimes, you lose.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

- Original Message -
 From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca

 I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly
 been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the
 links. Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering
 was happening at IXs (haven't checked this thoroughly), so at that
 point it would seem reasonable for each party to handle their own
 capacity to the peering points and call it even. No?

And the answer is: at whose instance (to use an old Bell term) is that
traffic moving.

The answer is at the instance of the eyeball's customers.

So there's no call for the eyeball to charge the provider for it.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post


On Apr 26, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:

 How is this *not* Comcast's problem?  If my users are requesting more
 traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
 capacity to handle that?  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add
 ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side.  Am I missing
 something?
 
 Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that
 point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix
 would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get
 the data at least gets TO the Comcast network. The argument at hand is if
 Comcast permitted to charge them for the links to get to their network or
 should they be free/settlement free. I think it should be OK to charge for
 those links as long as its a fair market rate and the price doesn't
 basically amount to extortion. Sadly the numbers are not public so I
 couldn't tell you one way or the other aside from I disagree with the
 position Netflix seems to be taking that they simply must be free. Once
 that traffic is given directly to comcast no other party receives payment
 for delivering it so there is no double billing.


Beyond that, there’s a more subtle argument also going on about whether
$EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to $CONTENT_A
and less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method for encouraging
subscribers to select $CONTENT_A over $CONTENT_B by affecting the relative
performance.

This becomes much stickier when you face the reality that in many places,
$EYEBALL_PROVIDER has an effective monopoly as the only player choosing
to offer services at a useful level of bandwidth/etc. (If that).

Owen

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread Barry Shein


Well, that's a metaphorical use of fast lane which is fine but I
think the PR spin by CNBC was to actually give listeners the
impression that they'd get faster service (e.g., on streaming video)
now that this nasty FCC rule was out of the way.

On April 27, 2014 at 14:07 bedard.p...@gmail.com (Phil Bedard) wrote:
  The Fast Lane perhaps starts as not counting traffic against metered
  byte caps, similar to what ATT did on their mobile network.  If the
  content/service provider is willing to pay the provider, then the users
  may not pay overage fees or get nasty letters anymore when they exceed
  data caps.  The second and more contentious part of it is using QoS to
  guarantee the content/service provider's traffic is delivered, at the
  expense of traffic from those who aren't paying.  So if Netflix decides to
  pay and Amazon Prime doesn't, well Netflix will make it to your house and
  Prime might not.  Right now everyone's traffic gets dropped equally. :)
  (Well more Netflix because there is a lot more of it).
  
  
  -Phil (all opinions are my personal opinions)
  
  
  
  
  On 4/27/14, 1:44 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
  
  
  What are any of you talking about? Have you even bothered to read for
  example the wikipedia article on monopoly or are you so solipsistic
  that you just make up the entire universe in your head? Do you also
  pontificate on quantum physics and neurosurgery when the urge strikes
  you???
  
  Sorry but this discussion is so, uneducated, usage of terms which are
  not as they are defined in the English or any other language, etc.
  
  BOLD
  
  But what do you think about the FCC's efforts in regard to net
  neutrality?
  
  /BOLD
  
  Do you agree with CNBC's assessment that the internet has a fast
  lane and up until now FCC regulations prevented consumers and content
  providers from using it under the guise of net neutrality.
  
  Do you believe there's anything at stake here for you beyond just
  nattering about your own personal and peculiar notion of what a
  monopoly is? Does that really matter to any of this?
  
  I almost believe that this entire flame war on the definition of
  monopoly is being fanned by sockpuppets whose job it is to make sure
  no one here talks about net neutrality in any effective or at least
  meaningful way.
  
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607254
  
F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround,
Plans to Allow Fast Lane
  
The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that
allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through
which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a
content company is willing to pay for it, according to people
briefed on the proposals.
  
...
  
  Would someone please define this fast lane for me? That would be a
  really good start. Preferably the managers of that fast lane because
  they surely must be on this list...no?
  
  
  P.S. CNBC is owned by Comcast (or more specifically NBC Universal,
  which is owned by Comcast.)
  
  -- 
  -Barry Shein
  
  The World  | b...@theworld.com   |
  http://www.TheWorld.com
  Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR,
  Canada
  Software Tool  Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
  

-- 
-Barry Shein

The World  | b...@theworld.com   | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool  Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread Michael Thomas


On 04/27/2014 05:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Beyond that, there’s a more subtle argument also going on about 
whether $EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to 
$CONTENT_A and less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method 
for encouraging subscribers to select $CONTENT_A over $CONTENT_B by 
affecting the relative performance. This becomes much stickier when 
you face the reality that in many places, $EYEBALL_PROVIDER has an 
effective monopoly as the only player choosing to offer services at a 
useful level of bandwidth/etc. (If that).



Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue 
with their crappy last mile

service that is shameful for a supposed first world country?

Cue up Randy on why this is all such a painful joke.

Mike

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread goemon

If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they 
should lose common carrier protections.


-Dan

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread Larry Sheldon


On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:

If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.


I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.



--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

And Carterphone should apply to cellular networks, but I am not holding my 
breath.

Owen

On Apr 27, 2014, at 6:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:

 If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they 
 should lose common carrier protections.
 
 -Dan

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue
with their crappy last mile

If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
access to the Internet paid for by residential subscribers what do you
think it would do to the price of broadband?




On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:

 On 04/27/2014 05:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

 Beyond that, there’s a more subtle argument also going on about whether
 $EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to $CONTENT_A and
 less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method for encouraging
 subscribers to select $CONTENT_A over $CONTENT_B by affecting the relative
 performance. This becomes much stickier when you face the reality that in
 many places, $EYEBALL_PROVIDER has an effective monopoly as the only player
 choosing to offer services at a useful level of bandwidth/etc. (If that).



 Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue
 with their crappy last mile
 service that is shameful for a supposed first world country?

 Cue up Randy on why this is all such a painful joke.

 Mike

RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-27 Thread Hugo Slabbert

Apologies that I dropped offlist as I was out for the day.  I think the bulk of 
my thoughts on this have already been covered by others since, including e.g. 
Matt's poor grandmother and her phone dilemma in the What Net Neutrality 
should and should not cover thread.

Basically I think we're on the same page for the most part, with maybe some 
misunderstandings between us.

 I covered this scenario in more detail in my post What Net Neutrality should 
 and should not cover but if you expand on the assumption that paying for an 
 internet connection also pays for the direct connection of every party who 
 you exchange traffic with then you have a scenario where only half the people 
 connected to the Internet should have to pay at all for their connection 
 because any scenario where people simply buy their own pipe would be 
 considered double billing.

I don't think anyone on the Netflix^H^H^H^H^H^H $ContentProvider side of this 
was saying that $ContentProvider should get everything handed to them on a 
silver platter.  $ContentProvider pays for transit sufficient to handle the 
traffic that their customers request.  $EyeballNetwork's customers pay it for 
internet access, i.e. to deliver the content that they request, e.g. from 
$ContentProvider.  That covers both directions here.  Links between 
$ContentProvider's transit provider and $EyeballNetwork were getting congested, 
and $EyeballNetwork refuses to upgrade capacity.  Where we were getting into 
the double-dip was $EyeballNetwork saying to $ContentProvide:  Hey, we know 
you already pay for transit, but you're gonna have to pay us as well if you 
want us to actually accept the traffic our customers requested.

The alternate arrangement between $ContentProvider and $EyeballNetwork seems to 
be private peering, where again it would seem to be fair for each side to bring 
the needed transport and ports to peering points.  In recent history, though, 
it seems that $EyeballNetwork came out ahead in that agreement somehow.  Now, 
Tore brought up a good point on paid peering in cases where e.g. 
$EyeballNetwork is already exchanging traffic with $ContentProvider through 
existing peering or below their CDR on existing transit, and indeed it seems 
that was the case for $EyeballNetwork via peering with $CheapTransitProvider 
that $ContentProvider was using.  But it seems that $EyeballNetwork was having 
a pissing match with $CheapTransitProvider and refusing to upgrade ports.

Okay, says $ContentProvider.  How about we just peer directly.
Sounds great, says $EyeballNetwork.  Since we have to allocate capacity for 
this discrete from our existing peering capacity, you'll need to foot the bill 
for that.
Huh? says $ContentProvider.  This could have been fixed by you increasing 
your peering capacity to match the traffic volume your users are requesting, 
but you didn't want to do that because of your tiff with $CheapTransitProvider. 
 Tell me again why we're paying for your side of this *in addition* to our own 
when we're only going this route because of a decision *you* made?
Because you need to reach our customers, and we're the only path to them, so 
we have leverage.
*blank stare*
So you're willing to give your customers crappy service because your customers 
don't have alternate options and you think we need this more than you do?
That's a possibility.
I hate you.
I know; sign here please.

But, again, this is outside looking in.  For now, I'll pick up a copy of Bill 
Norton's Internet Peering book as per Bob's suggestion, for some light Sunday 
night reading.

Cheers,

--
Hugo


From: Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:45 AM
To: Hugo Slabbert
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could 
enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

If it were through a switch at the exchange it would be on each of them to 
individually upgrade their capacity to it but at the capacities they are at it 
they are beyond what would make sense financially to go over an exchange switch 
so they would connect directly instead. It's likely more along the lines of 
needing several 100G ports as Netflix is over 30% of peak usage traffic in 
North America:

Netflix (31.6%) holds its ground as the leading downstream application in 
North America and together with YouTube (18.6%) accounts for over 50% of 
downstream traffic on fixed networks.  (source 
https://www.sandvine.com/trends/global-internet-phenomena/ )

That amount of data is massive scale. I don't see it as double dipping because 
each party is buying the pipe they are using. I am buying a 15Mbps pipe to my 
home but just because we are communicating over the Internet doesn't mean the 
money I am paying covers the cost of your connection too. You must still buy 
your own pipe in the same way Netflix would. I covered this scenario in more 
detail in my post What Net Neutrality should and should not cover but if

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

Here is a quote I made in the other thread around the same time you were
sending this:

I also think the practice of paying an intermediary ISP a per Mbps rate in
order to get to a last mile ISP over a settlement free agreement is also a
bit disingenuous in cases where the amount of traffic is sufficient enough
to fill multiple links. Theoretically there are many times where the
intermediary ISP can hand off the traffic to a last mile ISP in exactly the
same building they received it in so they have very few of the costs of
actually delivering the traffic yet are the only party receiving money from
the content provider for delivery. This arrangement makes sense when the
traffic to the last mile ISP is a percentage of one link but after enough
links are involved the intermediary ISP is serving no real other purpose
than as a loophole used to circumvent paid peering fees (right or wrong).

I think we are in agreement that $EyeballNetwork's customers pay it for
internet access and $ContentProvider should pay for their own pipes. But
where we diverge is with $CheapTransitProvider.

At least for the purpose of traffic following the path of $ContentProvider
 $CheapTransitProvider  $EyeballNetwork's because there is so much
traffic involved the only real purpose of the relationship with
$CheapTransitProvider is a loophole to get around paying $EyeballNetwork.
They are able to charge ridiculously low delivery prices because traffic is
only on their network for just long enough to say it touched and should now
be considered settlement free. It's little more than a cheap trick and it
makes them sort of the Cash4Gold of the Internet. I can completely
understand why $EyeballNetwork would tell $CheapTransitProvider they no
longer choose to have a settlement free agreement and they must buy future
ports.




On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.cawrote:

 Apologies that I dropped offlist as I was out for the day.  I think the
 bulk of my thoughts on this have already been covered by others since,
 including e.g. Matt's poor grandmother and her phone dilemma in the What
 Net Neutrality should and should not cover thread.

 Basically I think we're on the same page for the most part, with maybe
 some misunderstandings between us.

  I covered this scenario in more detail in my post What Net Neutrality
 should and should not cover but if you expand on the assumption that
 paying for an internet connection also pays for the direct connection of
 every party who you exchange traffic with then you have a scenario where
 only half the people connected to the Internet should have to pay at all
 for their connection because any scenario where people simply buy their own
 pipe would be considered double billing.

 I don't think anyone on the Netflix^H^H^H^H^H^H $ContentProvider side of
 this was saying that $ContentProvider should get everything handed to them
 on a silver platter.  $ContentProvider pays for transit sufficient to
 handle the traffic that their customers request.  $EyeballNetwork's
 customers pay it for internet access, i.e. to deliver the content that they
 request, e.g. from $ContentProvider.  That covers both directions here.
  Links between $ContentProvider's transit provider and $EyeballNetwork were
 getting congested, and $EyeballNetwork refuses to upgrade capacity.  Where
 we were getting into the double-dip was $EyeballNetwork saying to
 $ContentProvide:  Hey, we know you already pay for transit, but you're
 gonna have to pay us as well if you want us to actually accept the traffic
 our customers requested.

 The alternate arrangement between $ContentProvider and $EyeballNetwork
 seems to be private peering, where again it would seem to be fair for each
 side to bring the needed transport and ports to peering points.  In recent
 history, though, it seems that $EyeballNetwork came out ahead in that
 agreement somehow.  Now, Tore brought up a good point on paid peering in
 cases where e.g. $EyeballNetwork is already exchanging traffic with
 $ContentProvider through existing peering or below their CDR on existing
 transit, and indeed it seems that was the case for $EyeballNetwork via
 peering with $CheapTransitProvider that $ContentProvider was using.  But it
 seems that $EyeballNetwork was having a pissing match with
 $CheapTransitProvider and refusing to upgrade ports.

 Okay, says $ContentProvider.  How about we just peer directly.
 Sounds great, says $EyeballNetwork.  Since we have to allocate capacity
 for this discrete from our existing peering capacity, you'll need to foot
 the bill for that.
 Huh? says $ContentProvider.  This could have been fixed by you
 increasing your peering capacity to match the traffic volume your users are
 requesting, but you didn't want to do that because of your tiff with
 $CheapTransitProvider.  Tell me again why we're paying for your side of
 this *in addition* to our own when we're only going this route because of a
 decision *you* made?

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-26 Thread Owen DeLong


On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

 On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
 The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a 
 monopoly.
 
 Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents. 
 (Capitalization is intentional.)
 
 Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.
 
 
 Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
 
 Monopolies can not persist without regulation.

This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN protect monopolies, but 
that’s not always the outcome.

Monopolies absolutely can persist without regulation. Except in the most highly 
dense population areas, there is not a sufficient market to support the 
deployment of more than one copy of a given media type to that population. As a 
result, there is, in most places, a natural monopoly in each media type, 
whether that’s electrical, water, cable, twisted pair, fiber, etc.

 A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to 
 monopolies by regulation.

Yes, but an unregulated monopoly is a monopoly without constraints imposed by 
regulation.

Owen

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-26 Thread Owen DeLong


On Apr 24, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

 I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
 
 Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does
 not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG
 doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty
 non-operational now.
 
 In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed 
 without regulation to protect its monopoly power.

In my neighborhood, Comcast has a monopoly on coax cable tv and HFC internet 
services. There are no regulations that support that monopoly. Another company 
could, theoretically, apply, receive permits, and build out a second cable 
system if they wanted to. However, the population density is such that even if 
that company captured 50% of the market, it would merely make the market 
economically unviable for both companies.

In such instances, you do indeed have “natural monopolies” which are an 
economic construct, not a regulatory artifact.

 Besides, what has this to do with my original questions?
 
 Which were Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have 
 monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss? and How 
 is this good for the consumer? and How is this good for the market?
 
 My answer was an attempt to say that if you don't have any government 
 entities allowing and protecting (two pretty much interchangeable terms, I 
 prefer the latter) monopolies the answer to the first question is Huh?  
 What? and to the second and third Best service for the best price is pretty 
 good for everybody.  Except the losers that can't rip you off without the FCC 
 protection.”

How, exactly, are the governments protecting the monopolies of ILECs and Cable 
companies? It seems to me that it’s more a case of those monopolies persisting 
because the non-regulatory (largely economic) barriers to competition are large 
enough that they prevent viable competitors from forming. Allowing those 
unregulated monopolies to subsequently leverage that into a “content protection 
racket” is the internet equivalent of turning a regulatory blind eye to more 
traditional forms of extortion.

So, no, eliminating the government’s protection of monopolies (wherever you 
think that is occurring) will not solve the more general problem of monopolies 
that are a problem without government protection.

Owen

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-26 Thread Larry Sheldon


On 4/26/2014 3:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
wrote:



Monopolies can not persist without regulation.


This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN protect
monopolies, but that’s not always the outcome.

Monopolies absolutely can persist without regulation. Except in the
most highly dense population areas, there is not a sufficient market
to support the deployment of more than one copy of a given media type
to that population. As a result, there is, in most places, a natural
monopoly in each media type, whether that’s electrical, water, cable,
twisted pair, fiber, etc.


Sounds like the market at work, not monopoly power..I've never heard 
the term monopoly used where the market contains all the players that 
want to play.




--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-26 Thread Larry Sheldon


On 4/26/2014 3:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:


In my neighborhood, Comcast has a monopoly on coax cable tv and HFC
internet services. There are no regulations that support that
monopoly. Another company could, theoretically, apply, receive
permits,


Wait!  What?

Like if I want to build a pipeline to compete with your friends railroad?

--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-26 Thread Larry Sheldon


h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian

FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality

http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/

Forward!  On to the next windmill, Sancho!
--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-26 Thread Hugo Slabbert

Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if 
I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap.  With Comcast/Netflix being 
in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's 
obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway...

A long, long time ago when the Internet was young and few, if any had thought
to make a profit off it, an unofficial system developed among the network
providers who carried the traffic: You carry my traffic and I'll carry yours
and we don't need money to change hands. This system has collapsed under
modern realities.

I wasn't aware that settlement-free peering had collapsed.  Not saying it's 
the only way, but she ain't dead yet.

Seltzer uses that to set up balanced ratios as the secret sauce that makes 
settlement-free peering viable:
The old system made sense when the amount of traffic each network was sending 
to the other was roughly equivalent.

...and since Netflix sends Comcast more than it gets, therefor Netflix needs to 
buck up:
Of course Netflix should pay network providers in order to get the huge 
amounts of bandwidth they require in order to reach their customers with 
sufficient quality.

But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge network 
in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to Comcast users the 
traffic that they requested.  Is there really anything more nuanced here than:

1.  Comcast sells connectivity to their end users and sizes their network 
according to an oversubscription ratio they're happy with.  (Nothing wrong 
here; oversubscription is a fact of life).
2.  Bandwidth-heavy applications like Netflix enter the market.
3.  Comcast's customers start using these bandwidth-heavy applications and suck 
in more data than Comcast was betting on.
4.  Comcast has to upgrade connectivity, e.g. at peering points with the heavy 
inbound traffic sources, accordingly in order to satisfy their customers' usage.

How is this *not* Comcast's problem?  If my users are requesting more traffic 
than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have capacity to 
handle that?  I have gear; you have gear.  I upgrade or add ports on my side; 
you upgrade or add ports on your side.  Am I missing something?

Overall it seems like a bad (and very public) precedent  shift towards double 
dipping, and the pay-for-play bits in the bastardized Open Internet rules 
don't help on that front.  Now, Comcast is free to leverage their customers as 
bargaining chips to try to extract payments, and Randy's line of encouraging 
his competitors to do this sort thing seems fitting here.  Basically this 
doesn't harm me directly at this point.  Considering the lack of broadband 
options for large parts of the US, though, it seems that end users are getting 
the short end of the stick without any real recourse while that plays out.

--
Hugo 


From: NANOG nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of Larry Sheldon 
larryshel...@cox.net
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 4:58 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could 
enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian

FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality

http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/

Forward!  On to the next windmill, Sancho!
--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
 of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
 learn from their mistakes.
   (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-25 Thread Joe Hamelin

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Jack Bates jba...@paradoxnetworks.net
 wrote:

   I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die.

Hell, I remember back in '98 when it was triple digit, and not small values
at that.  We've come a long way.


--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-25 Thread Patrick W. Gilmore

On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

 I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
 
 Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does
 not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG
 doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty
 non-operational now.
 
 In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed 
 without regulation to protect its monopoly power.

I answered in a private message: Microsoft.

Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds.


 Which were Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have 
 monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss? and How 
 is this good for the consumer? and How is this good for the market?
 
 My answer was an attempt to say that if you don't have any government 
 entities allowing and protecting (two pretty much interchangeable terms, I 
 prefer the latter) monopolies the answer to the first question is Huh?  
 What? and to the second and third Best service for the best price is pretty 
 good for everybody.  Except the losers that can't rip you off without the FCC 
 protection.

While it is probably true that the gov't had a hand in the fact I have exactly 
one BB provider at my home, I am not even closed to convinced that a purely 
open market would not have resulted in the same problem. But thanx for pointing 
out an answer I probably missed.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-25 Thread Jeroen Massar

On 2014-04-25 15:23 , Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[..]
 While it is probably true that the gov't had a hand in the fact I
 have exactly one BB provider at my home, I am not even closed to
 convinced that a purely open market would not have resulted in the
 same problem. But thanx for pointing out an answer I probably
 missed.

In the Netherlands almost all bigger ISPs (the ones that cover quite a
large amount of the effective customer base) are now owned again by the
former government-started-then-turned-private ISP who has been buying up
various ISPs over the years.

Oh, and yes, the Dutch Regulatory organization did not see any problem
with this monopoly growing

All sounds like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso right? :)

Greets,
 Jeroen

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-25 Thread Daniel Taylor


On 04/25/2014 08:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:



In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed 
without regulation to protect its monopoly power.

I answered in a private message: Microsoft.

Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds.



DeBeers Diamond cartel, which operated internationally and held an 
effective monopoly on the diamond market for *decades* was apparently 
beyond the reach of regulation to either assist or hinder them, and has 
only recently faded somewhat in the face of competition that they can't 
reach with their traditional protective tactics.


The Standard Oil monopoly was obtained without the special assistance of 
government as well, though they were broken up by the government. The 
methods they used should be mandatory study for everyone.


The ATT monopoly position *was* granted (and later revoked) by the 
government.


Net neutrality is an intervention of the government to prevent monopoly 
forming tactics on the part of major players, so I think it is something 
worth having. It is not (unfortunately) something that is a natural 
state for the Internet.


--
Daniel Taylor  VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtay...@vocalabs.com   http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-25 Thread Jack Bates

On 4/25/2014 8:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

gulation to protect its monopoly power.
I answered in a private message: Microsoft.

Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds.
The government actually had to step in to hinder them, as I recall,
though I believe it was pointless. Relatively speaking, Microsoft had a
short run monopoly if you want to call it that. They definitely had the
market share. With the introduction of the smartphone and the tablet,
people have required more versatile applications which tend to work
across multiple devices. In this regard, I believe Apple won. Internet
growth and consumer education have also altered market share. The money
filtering into open source has fueled a lot of growth in software
development and allowed a lot more flexibility. The change to OSX and
x86 on Apple's part along with google and redhat's efforts have altered
the playing field permanently.

Which were Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content
providers or guarantee packet loss? and How is this good for the consumer? and How is
this good for the market?

My answer was an attempt to say that if you don't have any government entities allowing and
protecting (two pretty much interchangeable terms, I prefer the latter) monopolies the answer to
the first question is Huh? What? and to the second and third Best service for
the best price is pretty good for everybody. Except the losers that can't rip you off without the
FCC protection.

While it is probably true that the gov't had a hand in the fact I have exactly
one BB provider at my home, I am not even closed to convinced that a purely
open market would not have resulted in the same problem. But thanx for pointing
out an answer I probably missed.

In Oklahoma, I've watched WISPs take money from the various grants for
under-served areas. They love to move into small cities and those cities
are happy to have them. Their plan is well thought out. They know
exactly how fast the telco will move to increase speeds and drop the
requirement that you must also pay for a phone line (which the telco was
just using to pull in extra money on the backside until the FCC finally
changes that funding). The prices suddenly drop in the town. It's not
the best service for either party, but it is at least more affordable.

The one that pisses me off is when ILECs use grant money strictly to try
and wipe out their competition. It creates a very bad environment, where
one company must use grants for the same area as another company just to
stay competitive. I don't mind all these funds and all, but there needs
to be much more oversight on how the funding is used. underserved is
too broad, and the grants get used in anti-competitive practices against
companies that don't pull money from the government. In addition, I too
often see companies that have used grants not lower their prices,
provide more jobs, or increase their bandwidth offerings. I hear
corporate jet fuel is costly, though.

We still have huge areas of land that have little or no affordable
broadband capability. These are areas that it isn't profitable to buy
the equipment to serve and where grant money would do the most good to
allow sustainable growth. What I've been pondering is the creation of
non-profit ISPs, where the purpose is to actually serve the people who
won't make you millions at cost.

Jack

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-25 Thread Allen McKinley Kitchen (gmail)

I beg your indulgence..


On Apr 25, 2014, at 0:29, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

 ...On 4/24/2014 11:01 PM, Everton Marques wrote:
 On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore 
 patr...@ianai.netwrote:
 
 On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
 
 Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
 
 Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
 
 You are confused.
 
 
 I think Mr. Sheldon is pointing out this:
 
 Thank you.
 ...
 [more comment below]
 --xx--
 ...
 I don't know what got me to thinking about it earlier today but I recalled 
 when I started at the telephone company in Los Angeles there was a pitch made 
 early on that in earlier days a business in Los Angeles had to have several 
 telephones on desks to be able to talk to all of their customers.
 
 Which was true ONLY because regulation required that each telephone line 
 terminate in an instrument owned by the providing company.
 


The above statement contains an error that obscures the issue. As someone who 
also recalls this  state of affairs, I must point out that it was the 
respective telcos' regulation - not government regulation in any sense - that 
prohibited any equipment but their own from being attached to their lines. In 
other words, those telcos were behaving anti-competitively with all the power 
they could muster to do so (surprise!) and also doing whatever they could to 
obscure that fact. 

Regulation was demanded by consumers - in order to protect them from the 
ridiculous results of this assertion of privilege on the telcos' part. To Mr 
Sheldon, this resulted in regulation (by government) creating a monopoly. I 
believe Mr Gilmore might argue that well-crafted regulation requiring 
interconnectivity as a public good would have prevented both the need for 
monopoly-creating regulation and also would have protected the public from the 
inherent tendency toward monopoly as vendors do battle to protect their turf 
rather than provide the best possible outcome for their customers.

 Absent that one regulation, businesses would have invented multi-line 
 instruments a lot earlier than was the case.

So THIS argument is completely off the mark. In fact, one could say a 
regulation was needed which would have forbade the telcos' anti-competitive 
behavior, and then the competitive marketplace could have played out further. 
Instead, what we got - partly to address some of the other concerns like 
interconnection - was a set of regulations that favored one (well-connected) 
vendor, leading to a monopoly.

So in some respects, each Mr Sheldon and Mr Gilmore are both right. No surprise 
there, either, as I have immense respect for both. I tend to lean towards Mr 
Gilmore's position, though, in that I personally hold that powerful vendors 
have a natural positive feedback tendency towards monopoly if they can attain 
it, and regulation that is wisely and truly customer-centered can prevent much 
damage; I side with Mr Sheldon only insofar as I observe that one tactic of a 
determined monopolist is to engage compliant regulators to more firmly ensconce 
them, and I believe that's a Bad Thing.

Blessings..

..Allen Kitchen, Old Guy

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-25 Thread Larry Sheldon


On 4/25/2014 8:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
wrote:


I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.


Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG
does not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to
NANOG doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread
is pretty non-operational now.


In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly
that existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power.


I answered in a private message: Microsoft.

Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds.


OK, so you are a troll.

Microsoft is among the most heavily protected-by-regulation companies I
can think of.

Have you ever seen their patent collection?  Can you guess at the size
of their infringement-enforcement staff?  Do you have any idea how many
court-room hours are spent each day protecting their monopoly?

--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-25 Thread Larry Sheldon


On 4/25/2014 9:13 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:


DeBeers Diamond cartel, which operated internationally and held an
effective monopoly on the diamond market for *decades* was apparently
beyond the reach of regulation to either assist or hinder them, and has
only recently faded somewhat in the face of competition that they can't
reach with their traditional protective tactics.


It was governments that aided and abetted their enforcements in what 
would have been felonies for anybody else.



The Standard Oil monopoly was obtained without the special assistance of
government as well, though they were broken up by the government. The
methods they used should be mandatory study for everyone.


Standard Oil was not a monopoly in every economist's mind.  They were 
guilty of providing good products and services at reasonable prices.



The ATT monopoly position *was* granted (and later revoked) by the
government.



Net neutrality is an intervention of the government to prevent monopoly
forming tactics on the part of major players, so I think it is something
worth having. It is not (unfortunately) something that is a natural
state for the Internet.


Net neutrality is an intervention of the government to protect the 
monopoly tactics on the part of major players.


With this, on the assumption that I will again be tossed off for Off 
Topic discussions, I am out.


--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-25 Thread Hugo Slabbert

 Net neutrality is an intervention of the government to protect the 
 monopoly tactics on the part of major players.


I'm confused. Can you elaborate on how net neutrality would protect major 
players? Do you mean major content providers? Major broadband providers?

--
Hugo

 On Apr 25, 2014, at 16:08, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
 
 On 4/25/2014 9:13 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
 
 DeBeers Diamond cartel, which operated internationally and held an
 effective monopoly on the diamond market for *decades* was apparently
 beyond the reach of regulation to either assist or hinder them, and has
 only recently faded somewhat in the face of competition that they can't
 reach with their traditional protective tactics.
 
 It was governments that aided and abetted their enforcements in what 
 would have been felonies for anybody else.
 
 The Standard Oil monopoly was obtained without the special assistance of
 government as well, though they were broken up by the government. The
 methods they used should be mandatory study for everyone.
 
 Standard Oil was not a monopoly in every economist's mind.  They were 
 guilty of providing good products and services at reasonable prices.
 
 The ATT monopoly position *was* granted (and later revoked) by the
 government.
 
 Net neutrality is an intervention of the government to prevent monopoly
 forming tactics on the part of major players, so I think it is something
 worth having. It is not (unfortunately) something that is a natural
 state for the Internet.
 
 Net neutrality is an intervention of the government to protect the 
 monopoly tactics on the part of major players.
 
 With this, on the assumption that I will again be tossed off for Off 
 Topic discussions, I am out.
 
 -- 
 Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
 of System Administrators:
 Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
 learn from their mistakes.
   (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-25 Thread Patrick W. Gilmore

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. If you think things like patent 
enforcement == government protected monopoly, we are at an impasse.

I guess having the police keep people from breaking into their offices and 
stealing their computers is another form of government medaling we would all be 
better off without?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

On Apr 25, 2014, at 18:47 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

 On 4/25/2014 8:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
 On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
 wrote:
 
 I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
 
 Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG
 does not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to
 NANOG doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread
 is pretty non-operational now.
 
 In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly
 that existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power.
 
 I answered in a private message: Microsoft.
 
 Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds.
 
 OK, so you are a troll.
 
 Microsoft is among the most heavily protected-by-regulation companies I
 can think of.
 
 Have you ever seen their patent collection?  Can you guess at the size
 of their infringement-enforcement staff?  Do you have any idea how many
 court-room hours are spent each day protecting their monopoly?
 
 -- 
 Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
 Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-25 Thread Miles Fidelman


Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. If you think things like patent 
enforcement == government protected monopoly, we are at an impasse.

Well, leaving aside what one thinks of patents and copyrights - a 
government protected monopoly is EXACTLY what a patent is, by definition:


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for 
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their 
respective Writings and Discoveries;


Or do you have some different definition of exclusive Right?

But we digress.

Miles Fidelman







--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Vitkovský Adam

 How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
You are asking a wrong question all they care about is Where's my moneyTM

adam

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Bob Evans

Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?

After all just about everyone continues to buys Cisco gear. Gear from a
router company that decided to compete against it's own customer base.
Cisco did when it invested heavily and took stock in one of it's
customers, Cogent. Cogent the largest network responsible (for the most
part) of lowering the overall bandwidth prices, because it could now
afford too. Networks today continue to feed Cisco money (buying their
gear) despite the anti-competitive nature of that deal which kindled all
this. Still to this day, Cisco fuels Cogent's (anti-competitive) low
bandwidth pricing. By handing Cisco dollars, from that day forward, we
voted for fewer ISPs Backbones in the future.

Suck in your gut, because, it's to late to cry about it now. This concern
is over a decade late. That's how we got to this point. Cause and Effect
- and the Blinders we put on.

How can that be fixed ? More government regulations ?

Bob Evans
CTO

Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can
charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?

In a normal free market, if two companies with a mutual consumer have a
tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one
broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I
cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I
MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can
choose.

How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?

--
TTFN,
patrick

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planning-new-net-neutrality-rules-and-they-could-enshrine-pay-for-play/

Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:53:49 -0700, Bob Evans said:
   Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?

Spoken like a true oligarch. :)


pgpi7z4ivHaAa.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

I think you and I disagree on the definition of anti-competitive.

But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the
FCC thing was timely and operational.

--
TTFN,
patrick

On Apr 24, 2014, at 10:53 , Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote:

Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?

Suck in your gut, because, it's to late to cry about it now. This concern
is over a decade late. That's how we got to this point. Cause and Effect
- and the Blinders we put on.

How can that be fixed ? More government regulations ?

Bob Evans
CTO

Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can
charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?

How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?

--
TTFN,
patrick

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planning-new-net-neutrality-rules-and-they-could-enshrine-pay-for-play/

Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Chris Boyd


I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --

Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited

--Chris

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Bob Evans

Valdis, we will give you more time to read the entire post before
responding. That way you might not mislabel or misspeak as often. :-)
Bob Evans
CTO




 On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:53:49 -0700, Bob Evans said:
   Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?

 Spoken like a true oligarch. :)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Jack Bates


On 4/24/2014 9:59 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

I think you and I disagree on the definition of anti-competitive.

But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the 
FCC thing was timely and operational.


I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die.

I'm not sure that the change really alters backbone policy, but it would 
definitely open the doors for bad things in the access networks. That 
being said, only the largest networks could put enough pressure to 
benefit from it, and some do that currently. I also don't see this as 
any different than the business model some streaming sites enforce where 
the ISP must pay for stream access based on their subscribers instead of 
interested subscribers just paying for an individual account. Fair is 
fair, and some of the streamers have been hitting ISPs longer. Once 
again, only the largest streamers can hope to get away with it, and only 
the largest ISPs can get the low priced deals. In both cases, it's the 
small ISPs and small content providers that suffer.


I don't see the FCC stopping megacorp bullying anytime in the near future.

Jack

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Wayne E Bouchard

My take here is that I'd rather the FCC just leave it alone and see if
the market doesn't work it out in some reasonable way. That is, to not
even address it in rules, whether accept or prohibit. Just step back
and make sure that all you see is dust rising and not smoke. These
things take a while to resolve. This issue has been building for a
while but hasn't really reached its pinnacle yet so who is to say what
things will look like in five years from a business standpoint? To
codify something pretty well means you want it to look a particular
way or you are accepting a way of being that may or may not be in the
interests of those concerned and pretty well ending discussion,
negotiation, and experimentation regarding that point.

The problem is that all the RBOCs/ILECs/Cable groups seem to be headed
in the same direction (and most of them are trying to run their own
CDN and force their customers to use it instead of a third party--and
running them badly to boot. Sound familiar?) If that were not the
case, such a scheme would not be viable since there would always be
someone undermining it. (Like OPEC... The price they want is never
what they get because some country or another is always selling more
than they say they're going to because they want more money, meaning
supply is greater than it should be and prices adjust accordingly.) It
only takes one or two holdouts to upset the plans of all the rest.

*shrug*

I'll have to see how these changes are implemented and how things
are interpreted before we know what this is going to do to
competitveness.

-Wayne

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:42:42PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
 On 4/24/2014 9:59 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
 I think you and I disagree on the definition of anti-competitive.
 
 But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured 
 the FCC thing was timely and operational.
 
 I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die.
 
 I'm not sure that the change really alters backbone policy, but it would 
 definitely open the doors for bad things in the access networks. That 
 being said, only the largest networks could put enough pressure to 
 benefit from it, and some do that currently. I also don't see this as 
 any different than the business model some streaming sites enforce where 
 the ISP must pay for stream access based on their subscribers instead of 
 interested subscribers just paying for an individual account. Fair is 
 fair, and some of the streamers have been hitting ISPs longer. Once 
 again, only the largest streamers can hope to get away with it, and only 
 the largest ISPs can get the low priced deals. In both cases, it's the 
 small ISPs and small content providers that suffer.
 
 I don't see the FCC stopping megacorp bullying anytime in the near future.
 
 Jack

---
Wayne Bouchard
w...@typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/

RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Blaine

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-prote
ct-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy

-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 5:15 AM
To: North American Operators' Group
Subject: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can
charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?

In a normal free market, if two companies with a mutual consumer have a
tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one
broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I
cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I
MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can
choose. 

How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planni
ng-new-net-neutrality-rules-and-they-could-enshrine-pay-for-play/

Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Jimmy Hess

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com wrote:
 I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --
 Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited

Wait;  it should be a new type code message, so the header format/data
section can be different.  And include in the error response;  the
160-bit  Bitcoin addresses the user should send the ransom, err,  I
mean  payment to for various drop rates,  and a declaration of  the
amount  of total payment that needs  to be confirmed on the blockchain
 per  Kilobyte for  successful delivery  of the payload at the offered
service levels :)

 --Chris
--
-JH

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.

Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents. 
(Capitalization is intentional.)

Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

On Apr 24, 2014, at 17:57 , Wayne E Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote:

 My take here is that I'd rather the FCC just leave it alone and see if
 the market doesn't work it out in some reasonable way. That is, to not
 even address it in rules, whether accept or prohibit. Just step back
 and make sure that all you see is dust rising and not smoke. These
 things take a while to resolve. This issue has been building for a
 while but hasn't really reached its pinnacle yet so who is to say what
 things will look like in five years from a business standpoint? To
 codify something pretty well means you want it to look a particular
 way or you are accepting a way of being that may or may not be in the
 interests of those concerned and pretty well ending discussion,
 negotiation, and experimentation regarding that point.
 
 The problem is that all the RBOCs/ILECs/Cable groups seem to be headed
 in the same direction (and most of them are trying to run their own
 CDN and force their customers to use it instead of a third party--and
 running them badly to boot. Sound familiar?) If that were not the
 case, such a scheme would not be viable since there would always be
 someone undermining it. (Like OPEC... The price they want is never
 what they get because some country or another is always selling more
 than they say they're going to because they want more money, meaning
 supply is greater than it should be and prices adjust accordingly.) It
 only takes one or two holdouts to upset the plans of all the rest.
 
 *shrug*
 
 I'll have to see how these changes are implemented and how things
 are interpreted before we know what this is going to do to
 competitveness.
 
 -Wayne
 
 On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:42:42PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
 On 4/24/2014 9:59 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
 I think you and I disagree on the definition of anti-competitive.
 
 But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured 
 the FCC thing was timely and operational.
 
 I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die.
 
 I'm not sure that the change really alters backbone policy, but it would 
 definitely open the doors for bad things in the access networks. That 
 being said, only the largest networks could put enough pressure to 
 benefit from it, and some do that currently. I also don't see this as 
 any different than the business model some streaming sites enforce where 
 the ISP must pay for stream access based on their subscribers instead of 
 interested subscribers just paying for an individual account. Fair is 
 fair, and some of the streamers have been hitting ISPs longer. Once 
 again, only the largest streamers can hope to get away with it, and only 
 the largest ISPs can get the low priced deals. In both cases, it's the 
 small ISPs and small content providers that suffer.
 
 I don't see the FCC stopping megacorp bullying anytime in the near future.
 
 Jack
 
 ---
 Wayne Bouchard
 w...@typo.org
 Network Dude
 http://www.typo.org/~web/



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post


On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.

Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents. 
(Capitalization is intentional.)

Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.



Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.

Monopolies can not persist without regulation.

A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to 
monopolies by regulation.


--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
 On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

 The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a 
 monopoly.
 
 Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents. 
 (Capitalization is intentional.)
 
 Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.
 
 
 Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
 
 Monopolies can not persist without regulation.

You are confused.

Unless you are talking about persist on a time horizon spanning generations. 
If so, then nothing can persist, with or without regulation. And more 
importantly, I am not willing to wait that long for a fix.


 A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to 
 monopolies by regulation.

Regulations can work to ensure monopolies do not form. This is not supposition, 
but historical fact.

It is an open question whether our current regulator regime is capable of 
repeating that feat, however.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Andris Kalnozols


On 4/24/2014 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:

On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a
monopoly.

Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is intentional.)

Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.



Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.

Monopolies can not persist without regulation.

A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to
monopolies by regulation.


In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
 In practice, there is. --- Yogi Berra

Due to the existence of Regulatory Capture, Mr. Gilmore has a point.

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Everton Marques

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:

 On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
 
  Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
 
  Monopolies can not persist without regulation.

 You are confused.


I think Mr. Sheldon is pointing out this:
--xx--
The biggest myth of all in this regard is the notion that telephone service
is a natural monopoly. Economists have taught generations of students that
telephone service is a classic example of market failure and that
government regulation in the public interest was necessary. But as Adam
D. Thierer recently proved, there is nothing at all natural about the
telephone monopoly enjoyed by ATT for so many decades; it was purely a
creation of government intervention.

Once ATT's initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung
up. By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already
grabbed 5 percent of total market share … after the turn of the century,
over 3,000 competitors existed.[55] http://mises.org/daily/5266/#note55 In
some states there were over 200 telephone companies operating
simultaneously. By 1907, ATT's competitors had captured 51 percent of the
telephone market and prices were being driven sharply down by the
competition. Moreover, there was no evidence of economies of scale, and
entry barriers were obviously almost nonexistent, contrary to the standard
account of the theory of natural monopoly as applied to the telephone
industry.
(...)
The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a
natural monopoly has ever existed. The history of the so-called public
utility concept is that the late 19th and early 20th century utilities
competed vigorously and, like all other industries, they did not like
competition. They first secured government-sanctioned monopolies, and
*then,* with the help of a few influential economists, constructed an *ex*
*post* rationalization for their monopoly power.
--xx--
The Myth of Natural Monopoly
http://mises.org/daily/5266/

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:01 , Everton Marques everton.marq...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
 On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

 Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
 
 Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
 
 You are confused.
 
 
 I think Mr. Sheldon is pointing out this:

That's nice.

A bit disingenuous, but nice.

To be clear, I have no idea if ATT was a natural monopoly in the 1890s or not. 
But the idea that there can be no natural monopoly is ludicrous, unless you 
distort the definition so far out of shape is doesn't resemble anything except 
a complex syllogism in a textbook. Here in the real world, sometimes there is 
very clearly an overwhelming preference for a single company / provider / etc. 
to own a market segment. Pointing out the laws of physics do not prohibit 
competition does not mean there will be competition.

But we can agree to disagree. :)

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


 --xx--
 The biggest myth of all in this regard is the notion that telephone service
 is a natural monopoly. Economists have taught generations of students that
 telephone service is a classic example of market failure and that
 government regulation in the public interest was necessary. But as Adam
 D. Thierer recently proved, there is nothing at all natural about the
 telephone monopoly enjoyed by ATT for so many decades; it was purely a
 creation of government intervention.
 
 Once ATT's initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung
 up. By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already
 grabbed 5 percent of total market share … after the turn of the century,
 over 3,000 competitors existed.[55] http://mises.org/daily/5266/#note55 In
 some states there were over 200 telephone companies operating
 simultaneously. By 1907, ATT's competitors had captured 51 percent of the
 telephone market and prices were being driven sharply down by the
 competition. Moreover, there was no evidence of economies of scale, and
 entry barriers were obviously almost nonexistent, contrary to the standard
 account of the theory of natural monopoly as applied to the telephone
 industry.
 (...)
 The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a
 natural monopoly has ever existed. The history of the so-called public
 utility concept is that the late 19th and early 20th century utilities
 competed vigorously and, like all other industries, they did not like
 competition. They first secured government-sanctioned monopolies, and
 *then,* with the help of a few influential economists, constructed an *ex*
 *post* rationalization for their monopoly power.
 --xx--
 The Myth of Natural Monopoly
 http://mises.org/daily/5266/



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post


On 4/24/2014 10:44 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
wrote:

On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:



The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there
is a monopoly.

Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting
Rents. (Capitalization is intentional.)

Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.


Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.

Monopolies can not persist without regulation.


You are confused.


No.  I am not.


Unless you are talking about persist on a time horizon spanning
generations.


A monopoly can persist, as a maximum, as long as regulation protects it.

Just look at the words!  Regulated Monopoly has no definition without 
a monopoly.


If so, then nothing can persist, with or without

regulation. And more importantly, I am not willing to wait that long
for a fix.


fix is another monopoly preserver.


A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted
to monopolies by regulation.


Regulations can work to ensure monopolies do not form. This is not
supposition, but historical fact.


There is no case where regulation of monopolies prevented monopolies. 
The sentence doesn't even make any sense.


If that were actually true, there couldn't be any regulated monopolies 
could there?



It is an open question whether our current regulator regime is
capable of repeating that feat, however.


There are a number of cases in history where the absence of regulation 
has prevented monopolies.





--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

RE: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

2014-04-24 Thread Kiriki Delany

Might one example of what Larry is talking about be cable providers? Also
telephone companies. 

They are often awarded exclusive contracts within cities.

Do regulations prohibit anyone from becoming a cable company, in addition to
capital costs and difficulty of easements?


-Kiriki Delany




-Original Message-
From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 9:16 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

On 4/24/2014 10:44 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
 On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
 wrote:
 On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

 The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a 
 monopoly.

 Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting 
 Rents. (Capitalization is intentional.)

 Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.

 Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.

 Monopolies can not persist without regulation.

 You are confused.

No.  I am not.

 Unless you are talking about persist on a time horizon spanning 
 generations.

A monopoly can persist, as a maximum, as long as regulation protects it.

Just look at the words!  Regulated Monopoly has no definition without a
monopoly.

If so, then nothing can persist, with or without
 regulation. And more importantly, I am not willing to wait that long 
 for a fix.

fix is another monopoly preserver.

 A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to 
 monopolies by regulation.

 Regulations can work to ensure monopolies do not form. This is not 
 supposition, but historical fact.

There is no case where regulation of monopolies prevented monopolies. 
The sentence doesn't even make any sense.

If that were actually true, there couldn't be any regulated monopolies 
could there?

 It is an open question whether our current regulator regime is capable 
 of repeating that feat, however.

There are a number of cases in history where the absence of regulation has
prevented monopolies.




-- 
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
 of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
 learn from their mistakes.
   (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post


On 4/24/2014 11:01 PM, Everton Marques wrote:

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:


On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:


Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.

Monopolies can not persist without regulation.


You are confused.



I think Mr. Sheldon is pointing out this:


Thank you.

[more comment below]

--xx--
The biggest myth of all in this regard is the notion that telephone service
is a natural monopoly. Economists have taught generations of students that
telephone service is a classic example of market failure and that
government regulation in the public interest was necessary. But as Adam
D. Thierer recently proved, there is nothing at all natural about the
telephone monopoly enjoyed by ATT for so many decades; it was purely a
creation of government intervention.

Once ATT's initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung
up. By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already
grabbed 5 percent of total market share â€¦ after the turn of the century,
over 3,000 competitors existed.[55] http://mises.org/daily/5266/#note55 In
some states there were over 200 telephone companies operating
simultaneously. By 1907, ATT's competitors had captured 51 percent of the
telephone market and prices were being driven sharply down by the
competition. Moreover, there was no evidence of economies of scale, and
entry barriers were obviously almost nonexistent, contrary to the standard
account of the theory of natural monopoly as applied to the telephone
industry.
(...)
The theory of natural monopoly is an economic fiction. No such thing as a
natural monopoly has ever existed. The history of the so-called public
utility concept is that the late 19th and early 20th century utilities
competed vigorously and, like all other industries, they did not like
competition. They first secured government-sanctioned monopolies, and
*then,* with the help of a few influential economists, constructed an *ex*
*post* rationalization for their monopoly power.
--xx--
The Myth of Natural Monopoly
http://mises.org/daily/5266/


I don't know what got me to thinking about it earlier today but I 
recalled when I started at the telephone company in Los Angeles there 
was a pitch made early on that in earlier days a business in Los Angeles 
had to have several telephones on desks to be able to talk to all of 
their customers.


Which was true ONLY because regulation required that each telephone line 
terminate in an instrument owned by the providing company.


Absent that one regulation, businesses would have invented multi-line 
instruments a lot earlier than was the case.


There would still be some other problems like interchange traffic 
between companies, but I suspect that some entrepreneur would have (or 
maybe did) install two or more switchboards within lord reach of each 
other.  (The high school I went to in the 1950s had a very complete 
non-Bell System telephone system on-campus.  In a small office off the 
Main Office were two identical cord boards along with placards 
prohibiting connections between the two boards--which were ignored 
unless there was a telephone man in the office.




--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

The fact there are regulated monopolies does not mean regulation cannot be 
used to keep a monopoly from forming. And using a turn of phrase to prove a 
point of logic and/or history is a pretty sad argument. Yeah, the phrase 
regulated monopoly exists, therefore monopolies can't exist without 
regulation! Q.E.D. Oh, wait, got my abbreviation wrong, I meant: W.T.F.?

Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does not change 
the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG doesn't prove I'm right 
either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty non-operational now.

So believe as you please. I'm going to believe that the FCC allowing monopolies 
(regulated or not) to charge content providers as they please will be bad for 
me and about 300 million other Americans.

Besides, what has this to do with my original questions?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:23 , Kiriki Delany kir...@streamguys.com wrote:

 Might one example of what Larry is talking about be cable providers? Also
 telephone companies. 
 
 They are often awarded exclusive contracts within cities.
 
 Do regulations prohibit anyone from becoming a cable company, in addition to
 capital costs and difficulty of easements?
 
 
 -Kiriki Delany
 
 
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net] 
 Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 9:16 PM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
 enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
 
 On 4/24/2014 10:44 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
 On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
 wrote:
 On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
 
 The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a 
 monopoly.
 
 Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting 
 Rents. (Capitalization is intentional.)
 
 Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.
 
 Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
 
 Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
 
 You are confused.
 
 No.  I am not.
 
 Unless you are talking about persist on a time horizon spanning 
 generations.
 
 A monopoly can persist, as a maximum, as long as regulation protects it.
 
 Just look at the words!  Regulated Monopoly has no definition without a
 monopoly.
 
 If so, then nothing can persist, with or without
 regulation. And more importantly, I am not willing to wait that long 
 for a fix.
 
 fix is another monopoly preserver.
 
 A regulated monopoly is a monopoly, with all of the powers granted to 
 monopolies by regulation.
 
 Regulations can work to ensure monopolies do not form. This is not 
 supposition, but historical fact.
 
 There is no case where regulation of monopolies prevented monopolies. 
 The sentence doesn't even make any sense.
 
 If that were actually true, there couldn't be any regulated monopolies 
 could there?
 
 It is an open question whether our current regulator regime is capable 
 of repeating that feat, however.
 
 There are a number of cases in history where the absence of regulation has
 prevented monopolies.
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
 of System Administrators:
 Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
 learn from their mistakes.
   (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
 
 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post


On 4/24/2014 11:37 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

The fact there are regulated monopolies does not mean regulation
cannot be used to keep a monopoly from forming. And using a turn of
phrase to prove a point of logic and/or history is a pretty sad
argument. Yeah, the phrase regulated monopoly exists, therefore
monopolies can't exist without regulation! Q.E.D. Oh, wait, got my
abbreviation wrong, I meant: W.T.F.?

Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does
not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG
doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty
non-operational now.

So believe as you please. I'm going to believe that the FCC allowing
monopolies (regulated or not) to charge content providers as they
please will be bad for me and about 300 million other Americans.

Besides, what has this to do with my original questions?




--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post