[171714] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Conlen)
Sat May 10 18:14:21 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <05F6EA01-711E-4EE2-AC84-3F0A107ED849@ianai.net>
From: Michael Conlen <mike@conlen.org>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 18:14:13 -0400
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
If we ignore why and how the few high speed options exist for a moment and a=
ccept that it's "the way it is," then it seems reasonable that the place to p=
ut regulation is on them. At the same time cutting out middlemen is generall=
y good for everyone but the middlemen.=20
My current opinion then is to let ISPs cut out the middlemen but ensure that=
services which don't pay fees get reasonable access; regulate peering and t=
ransit agreements (not just for access providers but across the board). ISPs=
should be responsible to keep their links congestion free and have fair and=
reasonable terms to connect to their networks. They can sell direct access t=
o their network to anyone as long as they aren't selling QoS.=20
Comcast and Verizon can sell direct access to content providers but they can=
not degrade service as leverage in negotiations.=20
A side effect would be that if peering agreements must be public and there a=
re stated terms for various types of peering many of the silky peering games=
that get played and the silky peering disagreements that cause problems wou=
ld be more difficult.=20
We could finally answer the age old question, "is company X a 'tier 1'. "
--
Mike
> On May 10, 2014, at 14:42, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:=
>=20
> Nice discussion about history & motivations. Not completely correct, but i=
t's always fun to argue over history, and over motivations, since both are o=
pen to intepretation.
>=20
> Personally, I am interested in the future, and specifically in market-driv=
en solutions to our problems. Call me a capitalist if you like, but I believ=
e in a functioning market, we can get a very good approximation of "fair".
>=20
> If Company A and Company B have a mutual customer, and that customer needs=
both companies to perform a task, the market will find a way to make those t=
wo companies work together. Either that, or the customer will replace A or B=
, whichever the customer feels is underperforming, with Company C.
>=20
> We have that situation today. Streaming Company wants to send End User of B=
roadband Company some content. If Streaming Company sucks - not enough title=
s, lousy customer service, high price, poor performance, etc., etc. - End Us=
er is free to select Streaming Company 2. And contrary to popular belief, th=
ere are plenty of "Streaming Company 2s" available. Besides NF, there is Hul=
u, Amazon, iTunes, iPlayer, etc. They might have different models, but they a=
ll allow you to access streaming content, so choice is available.
>=20
> And here is where we get into the problem. Should End User believe Broadba=
nd Company sucks, they frequently cannot choose Broadband Company 2. I know I=
cannot, my choices are Comcast @ 100 Mbps or Verizon at 1.1 (yes, one-point=
-one) Mbps. So when Streaming Company sucks, but they suck because Broadband=
company is doing something I do not like, I cannot "vote with my wallet" an=
d pick Broadband Company 2. I have no choice but to pick Streaming Company 2=
, even if I think the problem is Broadband Company's fault. (To be clear, I a=
m not a NF subscriber - any more - and so this is not a NF/CC thing, I'm jus=
t talking generalities.)
>=20
> Put more succinctly, there is no functioning market. therefore there canno=
t be a market-based solution.
>=20
> Personally, I view that as about the most Un-American, Un-Capitalistic thi=
ng there is.
>=20
> Lots of people have suggested a simple, if very difficult, fix to this pro=
blem. Make the underlying physical infrastructure a regulated monopoly, i.e.=
a Utility. Then allow anyone to run services over that physical infrastruct=
ure.
>=20
> This is not pipe dream. The UK does it today. People there pick ISPs base=
d on service, price, features, etc., not on "who paid off my local PUC".
>=20
> And before anyone brings up the whole "the UK is more dense than the US", I=
preemptively call BS. There is more choice, faster speeds, and lower prices=
in the middle of no-where UK than downtown manhattan. Please just leave tha=
t argument where it belongs, in the dung heap.
>=20
> Why can we not do something similar in the US? because the companies who o=
wn the lines have enough money to pay enough lobbyists to avoid even the pro=
mises they do make. (If anyone on this list is un-aware of things like the t=
elcos promising ubiquitous high-speed BB years ago and never delivering, but=
never giving back their tax breaks or monopoly positions, you should be ash=
amed of yourselves.)
>=20
> But hey, a guy can dream, right?
>=20
> In the mean time, let's stop pretending that 'oh, L3 paid CC so they must b=
e best friends'. L3 paid because They Had No Choice, and maybe because they s=
ee some long-term strategic benefit (e.g. they can charge others more later)=
.
>=20
> This is not a functioning market. This is a few players with Market Power c=
harging Rents, which any first year econ major will explain is a _very_very_=
very_ bad place for the market to be.
>=20
> --=20
> TTFN,
> patrick
>=20
