[173011] in North American Network Operators' Group
Net Neutrality...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Mon Jul 14 17:15:28 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse
reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <53C2739B.3080306@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:05:24 -0400
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Jul 13, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> =
wrote:
> Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> ahhh. so
>>>> not government regulated =3D=3D wild west
>>> lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle =3D=3D =
wild west
>> at this point, maybe john curran, who you may remember from nearnet,
>> usually steps in with a good screed on industry self-regulation.
>=20
> yeah John, where are you (John and I sat a few doors from each other =
at one point, way back)
Oh joy, a network neutrality discussion, and it's taking place 1) on =
nanog, 2) over=20
the weekend, and 3) when I no longer run an ISP or a =
data-center/content-source...
It took some doing, but I was able to quell my urge to respond =
immediately (being at
the beach with family likely helped enormously... :-)
So the right answer to this entire mess would have been to provide =
competitive cost-
based access to the underlying facilities (copper, coax, fiber) =
including associated=20
colocation and power services, and consider that justified given the =
long regulated=20
history that made the establishment of the cable plants and =
rights-of-way possible. =20
(Note - we actually had this equal-facility-access framework in the US =
at one point,=20
but it was later "fixed" by a determination that effective competition =
could be=20
provided among service providers of different technologies (e.g. FTTH, =
cable, dish)=20
and that nothing more was needed. The result was the vertical =
integration that we=20
often see today - from access loop through Internet service and up to =
and including=20
content in many cases.
Attempting to now address this problem (of equitable access to Internet =
users) via=20
regulation of interconnection arrangements may not be very productive in =
the end; it
is a palliative measure that has potential for great complexity - =
similar to having=20
every gated community in the country file paperwork describing their =
programs for=20
handling of local delivery and pizza companies, and/or any fees for =
priority access
along the community roads, and all of this despite most of the =
community's insistence=20
that third-party vehicles should just be allowed to pass through.
There generally should be a point of interconnection which allows for =
settlement-
free handoff of traffic to local customers; the current industry-based =
"peering=20
model" has done a reasonable job of finding such accommodations when =
they can be=20
achieved, even if it does so with only nominal outside visibility. I =
understand
the desire for more consistency and public visibility into such industry =
agreements,
but would have greatly preferred efforts in that area as a prerequisite =
step (which
would allow for actual data and analysis to be introduced in the =
discussion) before=20
any further measures such as per-agreement regulatory review or =
formalization of=20
tiered priority mechanisms... Alas, that sort of structured approach =
is not how=20
government generally works, so we're going to go from standstill to "the =
complete=20
solution" in one large leap and have to hope it works out for the best.
/John
Disclaimer: My views alone - I would appreciate not having my packets =
molested if
you should happen to disagree with them... ;-)
