[171272] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Thu Apr 24 23:24:10 2014
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140424215749.GA39277@wakko.typo.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:23:54 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_251C7C02-962A-4B88-A3FF-299B80022D8C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
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.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
On Apr 24, 2014, at 17:57 , Wayne E Bouchard <web@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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> *shrug*
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> -Wayne
>=20
> 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".
>>>=20
>>> But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just =
figured=20
>>> the FCC thing was timely and operational.
>>>=20
>> I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die.
>>=20
>> I'm not sure that the change really alters backbone policy, but it =
would=20
>> definitely open the doors for bad things in the access networks. That=20=
>> being said, only the largest networks could put enough pressure to=20
>> benefit from it, and some do that currently. I also don't see this as=20=
>> any different than the business model some streaming sites enforce =
where=20
>> the ISP must pay for stream access based on their subscribers instead =
of=20
>> interested subscribers just paying for an individual account. Fair is=20=
>> fair, and some of the streamers have been hitting ISPs longer. Once=20=
>> again, only the largest streamers can hope to get away with it, and =
only=20
>> the largest ISPs can get the low priced deals. In both cases, it's =
the=20
>> small ISPs and small content providers that suffer.
>>=20
>> I don't see the FCC stopping megacorp bullying anytime in the near =
future.
>>=20
>> Jack
>=20
> ---
> Wayne Bouchard
> web@typo.org
> Network Dude
> http://www.typo.org/~web/
--Apple-Mail=_251C7C02-962A-4B88-A3FF-299B80022D8C
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTWdVKAAoJEHZX8udmu5TXc2oIALG8HUNbuej+shW1I2TieLkG
j3GbFyM+uUxVhY7HzX4r4MBIKJf+vcGxQBPAwLypIx1wHS1fjpXSvyrh/dxo069I
4w1m/8ffutqIgIpAN1tmEGxaOjwrGUM0mRoFcMynZ6diWoJBnGCoNGSOmLQLggIg
WwuATDy+oVITlgJjZiGrVhyHrIG1pgKNktdqrti6PuAnvLkkiWgPpPKYecHrMSZf
sWonpfIgvr6XjuJMEX80WNM7uZdSQsYWtu8WouWQ4BMxFbDuu4bTRskkefJHXYMF
gI3v65IVT+HV4UDhtDlEkj7BdR+GQcT7C2pt5QqwNoFahL4pbPxhV+F6rv1RKEA=
=smGJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_251C7C02-962A-4B88-A3FF-299B80022D8C--
