[173573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Jul 28 15:05:12 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <53D5CCB1.10404@bennett.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:02:16 -0700
To: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com> =
wrote:
> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for =
the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge =
providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC =
to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?" Professor van =
Schewick is pretty clear about making the users pay for the edge =
providers in her tome on Internet architecture and innovation.
This is as absurd as the people you shill^wpoopy-head (per your request) =
for.
The users pay either way.
Either the content provider(s) pay the carriers and then bill the users =
(at a mark up) or the users pay directly (hopefully without the markup).
We are, after all, not talking about data that Netflix wants to inflict =
on the unsuspecting user. We are talking about data that the user =
REQUESTED from Netflix.
Saying =93Content providers should pay=94 sounds great, because it =
sounds like it gives the end-user a free ride, but the reality is a =
little different.
Let=92s have a look at the unintended consequences of such a policy:
1. End users get billed more by the content providers to =
cover this additional cost.
2. Content providers have to mark up what they are charged =
by the end-user=92s ISPs, and they want to charge a uniform
rate to all customers, so the most likely result is that =
they bill end users based on a marked up rate from the most
expensive eyeball ISP they are forced to pay.
3. As a result of these additional charges, you create =
barriers to competition in the content space which begins to turn
content into more of an oligopoly like access currently =
is. Its a giant step in the exact opposite direction of good.
Frankly, I give Netflix a lot of credit for fighting this instead of =
taking the benefits it could provide and screwing over their customers =
and
their competition.
> Competition is a wonderful thing where it can work, but it's not a =
panacea, especially for the poor and for high-cost, rural areas. =
Communication policy has pretty much always relied on some form of =
subsidy for these situations, that's the universal service fee we pay on =
our phone bills.
How would you know=85 Let=92s _TRY_ it and see what happens? Subsidy for =
those situations is probably necessary, but so far, subsidy has always =
been structured to subsidize monopolies and block competition (at the =
request(demand) of the very people you shill^wpoopy-head for).
If we changed the subsidies a tiny bit so that all subsidized =
infrastructure was built in a manner open to multiple higher-level =
service providers (e.g. subsidized open fiber builds to serving wire =
centers with colocation capabilities) and made those facilities =
available to all service providers on an equal footing (same cost, same =
ToS, same SLA, same ticket priority, etc.) I bet you=92d see a very =
different situation develop rather quickly.
> Susan Crawford explicitly complains that American ISPs "gouge the =
rich" by charging more than the OECD norm for high-speed (50 Mbps and =
above) service, but she fails to point out that they also charge less =
than the norm for low-speed (15 Mbps and below) service.
Whatever=85 The bottom line is that overall, throughout the US, even in =
the most densely populated areas, we are far behind what you can get in =
places like NL, KR, SG, SE, etc. and paying generally more for it.
> I think it's easy to create unintended consequences if you don't look =
at how specific regulations affect real people, no matter how =
high-minded and principled they may appear at the surface.
OK, so please tell me what are the horrible unintended consequences of =
making layer 1 an open platform available on an equal footing to all =
competing L2+ providers that want to compete? As you point out, most L1 =
has been built with taxpayer money and/or subsidy, so what=92s the =
horrible downside to letting it actually work or the taxpayers instead =
of the oligopolistic law firms masquerading as communications companies?
Owen
>=20
> RB
>=20
>=20
> On 7/27/14, 7:08 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>=20
>> Conflating zero-rating with NN is not necessarily helpful. I somehow =
doubt that is ultimately what convinced all those groups to suddenly =
come out against NN at the last minute.
>>=20
>> The EFF did recently address the issue.
>>=20
>> =
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-di=
vide=20
>>=20
>> <quote>
>>=20
>> However, we worry about the downside risks of the zero rated =
services. Although it may seem like a humane strategy to offer users =
from developing countries crumbs from the Internet's table in the form =
of free access to walled-garden services, such service may thrive at the =
cost of stifling the development of low-cost, neutral Internet access in =
those countries for decades to come.
>>=20
>> Zero-rating also risks skewing the Internet experience of millions =
(or billions) of first-time Internet users. For those who don't have =
access to anything else, Facebook /is/ the Internet. On such an =
Internet, the task of filtering and censoring content suddenly becomes =
so much easier, and the potential for local entrepreneurs and hackers to =
roll out their own innovative online services using local languages and =
content is severely curtailed.
>>=20
>> Sure, zero rated services may seem like an easy band-aid fix to =
lessen the digital divide. But do you know whatmost =
<http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/more-competition-essential-for-future-o=
f-mobile-innovation.htm>stakeholders =
<http://a4ai.org/policy-and-regulatory-best-practices/>agree =
<http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/27.aspx>is a =
better approach towards conquering the digital divide? Competition=97which=
we can foster through rules that reduce the power of telecommunications =
monopolies and oligopolies to limit the content and applications that =
their subscribers can access and share. Where competition isn't enough, =
we can combine this with limited rules against clearly impermissible =
practices like website blocking.
>>=20
>> </quote>
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com =
<mailto:richard@bennett.com>> wrote:
>>=20
>> So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony
>> organizations but pro-neutrality groups like Free Press and Public
>> Knowledge that admit to collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are
>> legit? Given their long history, I think this is a bit of a =
stretch.
>>=20
>> It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced
>> that net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers
>> money from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the
>> pockets of super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and
>> most profitable companies in America, the content resellers,
>> on-line retailers, and advertising networks.
>>=20
>> Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when
>> that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who
>> provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to
>> Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor:
>>=20
>> "A surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies
>> of neutrality are applied without nuance. This week, Santiago put
>> an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries
>> =
<http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includ=
es-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>=
,
>> of big companies =93zero-rating=94 access to their services. As =
Quartz
>> has reported
>> =
<http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince=
-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/>,
>> companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike
>> up deals
>> =
<http://qz.com/69163/the-one-reason-a-facebook-phone-would-make-sense/>
>> with mobile operators around the world to offer a bare-bones
>> version of their service without charging customers for the data.
>>=20
>> "It is not clear whether operators receive a fee
>> =
<http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includ=
es-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>=
>> from big companies, but it is clear why these deals are
>> widespread. Internet giants like it because it encourages use of
>> their services in places where consumers shy away from hefty data
>> charges. Carriers like it because Facebook or Twitter serve as a
>> gateway to the wider internet, introducing users to the wonders of
>> the web and encouraging them to explore further afield=97and to =
pay
>> for data. And it=92s not just commercial services that use the
>> practice: Wikipedia has been an enthusiastic adopter of
>> zero-rating as a way to spread its free, non-profit encyclopedia."
>>=20
>> =
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-=
access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/
>>=20
>> Internet Freedom? Not so much.
>>=20
>> RB
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 7/27/14, 5:07 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>>> Now, this is astroturfing.
>>>=20
>>> =
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180781/leading-civil-rights-group-just-sold-=
out-net-neutrality
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <tel:218%20565%209365> Skype:punkcast
>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>=20
> --=20
> Richard Bennett
> Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
> Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
> Editor, High Tech Forum
