[169944] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Naslund, Steve)
Fri Mar 21 12:00:21 2014
From: "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@medline.com>
To: "mark.tinka@seacom.mu" <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:59:54 +0000
In-Reply-To: <201403211700.42920.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Well, we were originally talking about regulation in the US as discussed by=
Level 3 in the subject article, but we can get into the international spac=
e if you like.
So, as far as the government or Wall Street funding the build out of the co=
mmercial Internet, that is not what happened.
I was there in the beginning selling dial-up service, dedicated data circui=
ts, and finally DSL. Wall Street got into the game very late. We built ou=
r company into a $30 million operation before they cared to notice. The go=
vernment, while they did the initial research that created the Internet, di=
d not help us and was in fact a huge hinderance to progress until the Telec=
ommunications Act where they attempted to deal with us upstarts trying to u=
pset the status quo. Why people think the government was instrumental in t=
he commercial Internet is beyond me. I think some politicians might want y=
ou to think so.
I see no reason why the US model would not work in any market economy. It =
is a simple matter of supply and demand. If your economy cannot afford the=
infrastructure or the people have no money to pay for services, you are go=
ing to have a problem. There is a huge problem in that people think GOVERN=
MENT FUNDED=3DFREE, it does not and in most cases is more expensive than t=
he commercial alternatives since there is no motivation to be efficient.
In that case a hybrid approach like I used in helping schools in the Philip=
pines will work better. We used government funding and private grants to p=
rovide high speed internet to rural schools and we did it by buying commerc=
ial available wireless and cable services. This helps the people and also =
helps grow the communications industry there. The government does nothing =
but pay the bills (and they rarely even do that right).
Steven Naslund
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.tinka@seacom.mu]=20
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:01 AM
To: Naslund, Steve
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
On Friday, March 21, 2014 04:46:13 PM Naslund, Steve wrote:
> First question to ask yourself is who is paying for it.=20
> The "governments" don't do things out of the kindness of their hearts. =20
> They will want to be paid for it.
> Control means power and people in power want to get paid.
No one is denying that.
If I have the opportunity for my taxes to do real work like build a nationa=
l optical backbone, instead of lining some guy's pockets, I'm fine with tha=
t.
> Who else would run the network? Do we think the government can or=20
> should be operating communications networks? Do you want the=20
> government controlling what content you get or producing that content? =20
> I think not.
> Look at the wonderful job they are doing maintaining our=20
> transportation infrastructure.
My point was the governments do not know how to seek information on how bes=
t to sub-contract running of the network.
I certainly don't want the government running my network.=20
Heck, they barely know how to use the lift in their building.
But what we need is a more transparent process on choosing the right person=
(and model) to operate the network. In most deployments, this has been the=
weakest link.
> That is because we don't need a government initiative to do that. =20
> Most people in the US have access to broadband networks today because=20
> they wanted it and they were willing to pay someone for it. That is=20
> called a business initiative and it is much more efficient than any=20
> government initiative.
Right, but that is the U.S. (which is why I specifically mentioned Asia-Pac=
and Africa).
Other countries with smaller economies have realized that the quickest way =
to close the "digital gap" is, perhaps for better or worse, have the govern=
ment fund the projects (in part or whole).
Malaysia and Singapore have been relatively successful in this. Australia i=
s still wanting, and Tanzania is not something I'd say was done well but wo=
rks for the most part.=20
But the use-cases are there, at the very least, for learning.
> As far as "core national backbones" the government has built several=20
> over the years including the ARPANET, Defense Data Network, NSFnet,=20
> etc. None of those really helped the consumer except as models for=20
> the public networks. Our service providers have built global=20
> backbones that are more resilient and outrun all of those networks=20
> because market forces had them do it. I needed an MPLS circuit from=20
> my backbone to Shanghai China recently and I could get that from=20
> several service providers at reasonable rates.
>=20
> We did get two initiatives to build out access to the home as well as=20
> the national backbone. It is called the Internet. Backbone speeds=20
> increased at the same time access to the home went from dial up to DSL=20
> to cable to FTTH. What's the problem here.
Again, you're looking at it from "where the U.S. came from", which, for all=
intents and purposes, is where the Internet started. Great! But that does =
not help other economies today.
And if you consider the ARPANET, NSFnet, e.t.c., while those were not terri=
bly successful from the consumer perspective, in the end, they led to what =
the commercial Internet looks like today.
Priorities (either at the government or corporate level) have changed a gre=
at deal from the early days of the Internet. The amount of investment requi=
red to build out nationally in a short span of time is not available in the=
ways Wall Street (or government research grants) funded "The Boom" in Nort=
h America.
In developing countries, it leaves very little choice on who is willing to =
make that investment. That, I can tell you for free :-).
Mark.
