[171720] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun May 11 13:18:02 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <98FA78E1-E968-40D6-977C-E9B23367ECD0@conlen.org>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:11:57 -0700
To: Michael Conlen <mike@conlen.org>
Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On May 10, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Michael Conlen <mike@conlen.org> wrote:
> If we ignore why and how the few high speed options exist for a moment =
and accept that it's "the way it is," then it seems reasonable that the =
place to put regulation is on them. At the same time cutting out =
middlemen is generally good for everyone but the middlemen.=20
>=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 transit 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 to their network to anyone as long =
as they aren't selling QoS.=20
>=20
> Comcast and Verizon can sell direct access to content providers but =
they cannot degrade service as leverage in negotiations.=20
>=20
That set of regulations would be utterly impossible to meaningfully =
enforce because so much of it depends on subjective evaluation.
The various law firms involved (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al.) would =
have a field day playing in the gray areas of any such set of rules, =
most likely creating a situation of exactly the opposite of what is =
intended.
> A side effect would be that if peering agreements must be public and =
there are stated terms for various types of peering many of the silky =
peering games that get played and the silky peering disagreements that =
cause problems would be more difficult.=20
More likely, costs would go up for everyone for everything and the game =
wouldn=92t change by all that much.
> We could finally answer the age old question, "is company X a 'tier =
1'. =93
Since nobody has a real definition for =93tier 1=94, it=92s a fairly =
meaningless question to begin with.
(Yes, I am familiar with the alleged =93does not pay for transit=94 =
definition, but I=92ll point out that a completely disconnected network =
doesn=92t pay for transit, either, but I doubt anyone would think they =
are a tier 1.)
Owen
>=20
> --
> Mike
>=20
>=20
>> On May 10, 2014, at 14:42, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> Nice discussion about history & motivations. Not completely correct, =
but it's always fun to argue over history, and over motivations, since =
both are open to intepretation.
>>=20
>> Personally, I am interested in the future, and specifically in =
market-driven solutions to our problems. Call me a capitalist if you =
like, but I believe 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 two 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 Broadband Company some content. If Streaming Company sucks - not =
enough titles, lousy customer service, high price, poor performance, =
etc., etc. - End User is free to select Streaming Company 2. And =
contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of "Streaming Company 2s" =
available. Besides NF, there is Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, iPlayer, etc. They =
might have different models, but they all allow you to access streaming =
content, so choice is available.
>>=20
>> And here is where we get into the problem. Should End User believe =
Broadband 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" and 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 am not a NF subscriber - any =
more - and so this is not a NF/CC thing, I'm just talking generalities.)
>>=20
>> Put more succinctly, there is no functioning market. therefore there =
cannot be a market-based solution.
>>=20
>> Personally, I view that as about the most Un-American, =
Un-Capitalistic thing there is.
>>=20
>> Lots of people have suggested a simple, if very difficult, fix to =
this problem. Make the underlying physical infrastructure a regulated =
monopoly, i.e. a Utility. Then allow anyone to run services over that =
physical infrastructure.
>>=20
>> This is not pipe dream. The UK does it today. People there pick ISPs =
based 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 that argument where it belongs, in the dung heap.
>>=20
>> Why can we not do something similar in the US? because the companies =
who own the lines have enough money to pay enough lobbyists to avoid =
even the promises they do make. (If anyone on this list is un-aware of =
things like the telcos promising ubiquitous high-speed BB years ago and =
never delivering, but never giving back their tax breaks or monopoly =
positions, you should be ashamed 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 be best friends'. L3 paid because They Had No Choice, and maybe =
because they see 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 charging 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
