[173042] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Net Neutrality...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (manning)
Tue Jul 15 07:12:53 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: manning <bmanning@karoshi.com>
In-Reply-To: <53C46491.4070206@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 04:11:17 -0700
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
X-MailScanner-From: bmanning@karoshi.com
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
regarding content, I=92m not sure you and I live in the same media =
space, but I live in the same space as Springsteen who wrote "57 =
CHANNELS (AND NOTHIN' ON)=94
reports of TW in NYC having 2000 channels and nothing on are common. =
granted that major BB providers -own- a lot of content, but they =
certainly don=92t allow for =E0 la carte
access - one must take the whole bundle. (blame the FCC)
the promise of the Internet was that -anyone- could create and publish. =
=20
that called for curation skills (assuming equal access to published =
content)
such a system would have allowed for personally tailored content on a =
global scale.
Instead, we have =93eyeballs=94 that are encouraged to spend USD 4/per =
view of poorly digitized DVD copies of 30 year old movies
and all the =93Honey Boo Boo=94 you can handle. And be GRATEFUL for =
the privilege =85.
That real, quality content is out there, not part of the IP stable of =
corporate giants, is indisputable. As is the fact that
it is effectively locked out of the Internet at large. (youtube was a =
grand, failed, experiment)
/bill (who will return to his oubliette now)
On 14July2014Monday, at 16:15, Miles Fidelman =
<mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband =
providers are both
> - near-monopolies in their access areas
> - content providers
>=20
> Not a situation where market forces can work all that well.
>=20
> Miles Fidelman
>=20
> Naslund, Steve wrote:
>> Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there =
have to be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation =
of internet interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate =
things. I have been in the business a long time and remember how =
peering kind of evolved based on mutual benefit or some concept of =
"doing the right thing". For example, at InterAccess Chicago, our peer =
policy in the late 90s was pretty much the following.
>>=20
>> 1. Non-profits or educational institutions could private peer with =
us as long as they bore the cost of the circuit. (this kind of =
connection was more beneficial to them than us).
>> 2. Comparable sized carriers got to peer with us, with each of us =
picking up our portions of equipment and circuit cost since it was =
mutually beneficial.
>> 3. We would peer with anyone at any NAP we had a mutual appearance =
in.
>> 4. Larger network usual would not peer with smaller networks without =
some sort of compensation.
>>=20
>> Seemed to work pretty fair at the time and we managed the backbone by =
watching customer traffic. If things got congested, you paid for or =
peered with whoever you needed to in order to get acceptable performance =
for our customers. The big guys did get to call the shots and made you =
pay but then again they provided the largest fastest connections so I =
guess it was fair enough. It may have been the wild west in some ways =
but at that time everyone needed to get along because if your peering =
policies were unfair you would get universally shunned and then you =
would have real problems. I hate that the network operators now feel =
the need to ask the government to step in. When you ask for that don't =
be surprised that the government creates a cumbersome mess and =
disadvantages you in another way. The problem is that the gov does not =
react at internet speed.
>>=20
>> I remember the first unbundling agreements and trust me when I say =
that ourselves and the ILEC both found the gov't rules to be nearly =
unworkable. We eventually started with the telecom act framework that =
forced them to the table where they finally sat down with us and said =
"Ok, Ok, what do you really need here" and we banged out a pretty good =
interconnection agreement that was workable for both of us. Well, about =
as workable as it gets with an ILEC.
>>=20
>> I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You =
either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. The =
customer could care less who pays for what pieces or what is fair =
because in the end, their service provider is the only one they will =
punish. If Netflix becomes universally hard to connect to, then they =
will lose the customers. The customer does not really care why your =
connectivity sucks, they just know that it does and that if someone =
better comes along, they are gone.
>>=20
>> Maybe something better would be some sort of industry group that you =
could become a member of and that group could resolve peering disputes =
through some kind of arbitration process. The benefit of being a =
member could be something like the opportunity to peer with any other =
member on demand with some sort of cost splitting arrangement. They =
would need something like a group wide interconnection agreement. The =
responsibility would then be the industry and not some appointed FCC =
working group that spends all of their time writing convoluted =
gibberish. If the group was big enough and powerful enough, the =
incentive to get on board would be huge.
>>=20
>> Steven Naslund
>> Chicago IL
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>=20
