The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss? In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can "choose". How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market? -- TTFN, patrick http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planni... Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ? After all just about everyone continues to buys Cisco gear. Gear from a router company that decided to compete against it's own customer base. Cisco did when it invested heavily and took stock in one of it's customers, Cogent. Cogent the largest network responsible (for the most part) of lowering the overall bandwidth prices, because it could now afford too. Networks today continue to feed Cisco money (buying their gear) despite the anti-competitive nature of that deal which kindled all this. Still to this day, Cisco fuels Cogent's (anti-competitive) low bandwidth pricing. By handing Cisco dollars, from that day forward, we voted for fewer ISPs & Backbones in the future. Suck in your gut, because, it's to late to cry about it now. This concern is over a decade late. That's how we got to this point. "Cause and Effect - and the Blinders we put on". How can that be fixed ? More government regulations ? Bob Evans CTO
Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?
In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can "choose".
How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
-- TTFN, patrick
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planni...
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code -- Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited --Chris
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Chris Boyd <cboyd@gizmopartners.com> wrote:
I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code -- Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited
Wait; it should be a new type code message, so the header format/data section can be different. And include in the error response; the 160-bit Bitcoin addresses the user should send the ransom, err, I mean payment to for various drop rates, and a declaration of the amount of total payment that needs to be confirmed on the blockchain per Kilobyte for successful delivery of the payload at the offered service levels :)
--Chris -- -JH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Boyd" <cboyd@gizmopartners.com>
I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --
Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited
There is a SIP error that amounts to this; 480, I think. Though, of course, when I had a carrier who wouldn't complete calls cause they didn't like my balance, did they *use* that code? No, of course not. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Valdis, we will give you more time to read the entire post before responding. That way you might not mislabel or misspeak as often. :-) Bob Evans CTO
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:53:49 -0700, "Bob Evans" said:
Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
Spoken like a true oligarch. :)
I think you and I disagree on the definition of "anti-competitive". But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the FCC thing was timely and operational. -- TTFN, patrick On Apr 24, 2014, at 10:53 , Bob Evans <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:
Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
After all just about everyone continues to buys Cisco gear. Gear from a router company that decided to compete against it's own customer base. Cisco did when it invested heavily and took stock in one of it's customers, Cogent. Cogent the largest network responsible (for the most part) of lowering the overall bandwidth prices, because it could now afford too. Networks today continue to feed Cisco money (buying their gear) despite the anti-competitive nature of that deal which kindled all this. Still to this day, Cisco fuels Cogent's (anti-competitive) low bandwidth pricing. By handing Cisco dollars, from that day forward, we voted for fewer ISPs & Backbones in the future.
Suck in your gut, because, it's to late to cry about it now. This concern is over a decade late. That's how we got to this point. "Cause and Effect - and the Blinders we put on".
How can that be fixed ? More government regulations ?
Bob Evans CTO
Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?
In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can "choose".
How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
-- TTFN, patrick
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planni...
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On 4/24/2014 9:59 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I think you and I disagree on the definition of "anti-competitive".
But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the FCC thing was timely and operational.
I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die. I'm not sure that the change really alters backbone policy, but it would definitely open the doors for bad things in the access networks. That being said, only the largest networks could put enough pressure to benefit from it, and some do that currently. I also don't see this as any different than the business model some streaming sites enforce where the ISP must pay for stream access based on their subscribers instead of interested subscribers just paying for an individual account. Fair is fair, and some of the streamers have been hitting ISPs longer. Once again, only the largest streamers can hope to get away with it, and only the largest ISPs can get the low priced deals. In both cases, it's the small ISPs and small content providers that suffer. I don't see the FCC stopping megacorp bullying anytime in the near future. Jack
My take here is that I'd rather the FCC just leave it alone and see if the market doesn't work it out in some reasonable way. That is, to not even address it in rules, whether accept or prohibit. Just step back and make sure that all you see is dust rising and not smoke. These things take a while to resolve. This issue has been building for a while but hasn't really reached its pinnacle yet so who is to say what things will look like in five years from a business standpoint? To codify something pretty well means you want it to look a particular way or you are accepting a way of being that may or may not be in the interests of those concerned and pretty well ending discussion, negotiation, and experimentation regarding that point. The problem is that all the RBOCs/ILECs/Cable groups seem to be headed in the same direction (and most of them are trying to run their own CDN and force their customers to use it instead of a third party--and running them badly to boot. Sound familiar?) If that were not the case, such a scheme would not be viable since there would always be someone undermining it. (Like OPEC... The price they want is never what they get because some country or another is always selling more than they say they're going to because they want more money, meaning supply is greater than it should be and prices adjust accordingly.) It only takes one or two holdouts to upset the plans of all the rest. *shrug* I'll have to see how these changes are implemented and how things are interpreted before we know what this is going to do to competitveness. -Wayne On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:42:42PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/24/2014 9:59 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I think you and I disagree on the definition of "anti-competitive".
But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the FCC thing was timely and operational.
I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die.
I'm not sure that the change really alters backbone policy, but it would definitely open the doors for bad things in the access networks. That being said, only the largest networks could put enough pressure to benefit from it, and some do that currently. I also don't see this as any different than the business model some streaming sites enforce where the ISP must pay for stream access based on their subscribers instead of interested subscribers just paying for an individual account. Fair is fair, and some of the streamers have been hitting ISPs longer. Once again, only the largest streamers can hope to get away with it, and only the largest ISPs can get the low priced deals. In both cases, it's the small ISPs and small content providers that suffer.
I don't see the FCC stopping megacorp bullying anytime in the near future.
Jack
--- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly. Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents. (Capitalization is intentional.) Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite. -- TTFN, patrick On Apr 24, 2014, at 17:57 , Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org> wrote:
My take here is that I'd rather the FCC just leave it alone and see if the market doesn't work it out in some reasonable way. That is, to not even address it in rules, whether accept or prohibit. Just step back and make sure that all you see is dust rising and not smoke. These things take a while to resolve. This issue has been building for a while but hasn't really reached its pinnacle yet so who is to say what things will look like in five years from a business standpoint? To codify something pretty well means you want it to look a particular way or you are accepting a way of being that may or may not be in the interests of those concerned and pretty well ending discussion, negotiation, and experimentation regarding that point.
The problem is that all the RBOCs/ILECs/Cable groups seem to be headed in the same direction (and most of them are trying to run their own CDN and force their customers to use it instead of a third party--and running them badly to boot. Sound familiar?) If that were not the case, such a scheme would not be viable since there would always be someone undermining it. (Like OPEC... The price they want is never what they get because some country or another is always selling more than they say they're going to because they want more money, meaning supply is greater than it should be and prices adjust accordingly.) It only takes one or two holdouts to upset the plans of all the rest.
*shrug*
I'll have to see how these changes are implemented and how things are interpreted before we know what this is going to do to competitveness.
-Wayne
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:42:42PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/24/2014 9:59 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I think you and I disagree on the definition of "anti-competitive".
But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the FCC thing was timely and operational.
I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die.
I'm not sure that the change really alters backbone policy, but it would definitely open the doors for bad things in the access networks. That being said, only the largest networks could put enough pressure to benefit from it, and some do that currently. I also don't see this as any different than the business model some streaming sites enforce where the ISP must pay for stream access based on their subscribers instead of interested subscribers just paying for an individual account. Fair is fair, and some of the streamers have been hitting ISPs longer. Once again, only the largest streamers can hope to get away with it, and only the largest ISPs can get the low priced deals. In both cases, it's the small ISPs and small content providers that suffer.
I don't see the FCC stopping megacorp bullying anytime in the near future.
Jack
--- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Jack Bates <jbates@paradoxnetworks.net> wrote: I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die. Hell, I remember back in '98 when it was triple digit, and not small values at that. We've come a long way. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-prote ct-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy -----Original Message----- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick@ianai.net] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 5:15 AM To: North American Operators' Group Subject: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss? In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can "choose". How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market? -- TTFN, patrick http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planni ng-new-net-neutrality-rules-and-they-could-enshrine-pay-for-play/ Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>wrote:
Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?
In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can "choose".
[I speak only for myself here; any use of the word "we" should be taken to represent only my sense of inclusion with the rest of humanity, and not with any commercial entity or organization. Any other characterization of the following words is patently incorrect, and grounds for possible actions, up to and including litigation. Please don't be an ass, and quote me out of context, or as representing something I'm not. Original post edited slightly, with specific entity names replaced with variables; you may do your own substitution back into the variables as you feel appropriate. --MNP] What if we turn the picture around slightly, and look at it like the negotiations between broadcast networks and cable companies? 2010's battle between Fox television and cablevision comes to mind, where the content holder blacked out access to their content for specific cable companies unless they agree to pay the demanded fees. It would be interesting to have seen $content_CEO take a hard line stance; it wouldn't be hard to send a BGP feed to video streaming servers, and if the requestor's IP was from a prefix seen behind AS$foo, put up a message informing the subscriber that their access to $company's content would cease on such-and-such a date, due to $BB_provider's unwillingness to agree to increase interconnect capacity, and that if subscribers wished to continue to see $company's content, they should consider switching to a different network provider. Basically, follow the same model News Corp used against Cablevision, Viacom used against Time Warner, or Disney used against Cablevision. How long would $BB_provider be able to hold out against the howls of its users, if there was a scrolling banner across the top of the screen during their favorite show, or favorite movie alerting them that they would soon be unable to see that content unless they switched to a different service provider? It's easy to forget that the sword can be swung both ways. Right now, $BB_provider is swinging the sharp edge at $content; but $content is not without its own influence in the market, and could swing the sword the other way, cutting back at $BB_provider. Yes, it comes at some great risk to $content, in terms of potential customer loss; but no great wins come without great risks (unless you cheat, and use the government to get you a big win at no risk--but none of us like that model). I think it's high time for content players to flex their power, and push back on the eyeball networks that attempt to use their customer base as hostages to extract additional revenue from the content being requested by their users. If the content providers simply make it clearly visible to the end users that they cannot watch the requested content on that network, or that they can only watch in reduced resolution from that network, it will have a two-fold effect: a) traffic volume from the content provider to the contentious network will be reduced, limiting the need for the upgrades in the first place, and b) customers of the provider will be informed of their status as hostage cannon fodder on the battlefield, allowing them to vote with their wallets. One could potentially even insert suggestions for alternate connectivity options they might consider into the content feed, to help the users vote with their wallets more easily. Or, provide the phone number of the local municipal office that granted the franchise rights to the BB provider, along with instructions on what to say when calling ("Hi--I'm a registered voter in your district. If you'd like to get re-elected next term, you need to repeal the cable franchise agreement with broadband provider such-and-so, as their monopolistic practices are hampering my ability to freely choose what content I can consume.") We're not powerless in this fight. We often take a victim mindset, and look for some other entity to rescue us; but that's not the right way to thrive. Instead of thinking that we're weak, we're victims, and can't protect ourselves, or that we need some other big, strong entity to shelter and protect us, we need to realize that we *are* strong. We *are* capable of standing up and fighting back. We *do* have power, and can say no to the bullies. They want us to feel we have no say in the matter, that we cannot survive without protection. But they are wrong. We are strong. We are capable. We *can* fight back. For example, in Patrick's case (he being a Bostonian still, I believe), the municipal cable office responsible for the cable franchises in the city are handled by: http://www.cityofboston.gov/contact/?id=35
How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
-- TTFN, patrick
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planni...
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
I don't think it's good for the consumer or the market; but I also don't think it's just up to the government to step in and try to protect the consumer and the market. There's a lot we can do to shape the outcome, if we just step up to the plate and make our voices (and our wallets) heard. We are not victims. We *are* the market. Never forget; we have given them the power they currently have. And that means we can take it away again. It won't be easy. It won't be painless. But it *can* be done. Matt
It was pointed out privately to me that I may have caused some confusion here with my variable substitution. $BB_provider was intended to be "BroadBand provider", *not* "BackBone provider", as some people have (understandably) misread it. So--to clarify, this was not meant as any type of characterization of backbone providers, but rather of broadband providers. I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Thanks! Matt On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>wrote:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>wrote:
Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?
In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can "choose".
[I speak only for myself here; any use of the word "we" should be taken to represent only my sense of inclusion with the rest of humanity, and not with any commercial entity or organization. Any other characterization of the following words is patently incorrect, and grounds for possible actions, up to and including litigation. Please don't be an ass, and quote me out of context, or as representing something I'm not. Original post edited slightly, with specific entity names replaced with variables; you may do your own substitution back into the variables as you feel appropriate. --MNP]
What if we turn the picture around slightly, and look at it like the negotiations between broadcast networks and cable companies? 2010's battle between Fox television and cablevision comes to mind, where the content holder blacked out access to their content for specific cable companies unless they agree to pay the demanded fees.
It would be interesting to have seen $content_CEO take a hard line stance; it wouldn't be hard to send a BGP feed to video streaming servers, and if the requestor's IP was from a prefix seen behind AS$foo, put up a message informing the subscriber that their access to $company's content would cease on such-and-such a date, due to $BB_provider's unwillingness to agree to increase interconnect capacity, and that if subscribers wished to continue to see $company's content, they should consider switching to a different network provider. Basically, follow the same model News Corp used against Cablevision, Viacom used against Time Warner, or Disney used against Cablevision.
How long would $BB_provider be able to hold out against the howls of its users, if there was a scrolling banner across the top of the screen during their favorite show, or favorite movie alerting them that they would soon be unable to see that content unless they switched to a different service provider?
It's easy to forget that the sword can be swung both ways. Right now, $BB_provider is swinging the sharp edge at $content; but $content is not without its own influence in the market, and could swing the sword the other way, cutting back at $BB_provider. Yes, it comes at some great risk to $content, in terms of potential customer loss; but no great wins come without great risks (unless you cheat, and use the government to get you a big win at no risk--but none of us like that model).
I think it's high time for content players to flex their power, and push back on the eyeball networks that attempt to use their customer base as hostages to extract additional revenue from the content being requested by their users. If the content providers simply make it clearly visible to the end users that they cannot watch the requested content on that network, or that they can only watch in reduced resolution from that network, it will have a two-fold effect: a) traffic volume from the content provider to the contentious network will be reduced, limiting the need for the upgrades in the first place, and b) customers of the provider will be informed of their status as hostage cannon fodder on the battlefield, allowing them to vote with their wallets. One could potentially even insert suggestions for alternate connectivity options they might consider into the content feed, to help the users vote with their wallets more easily. Or, provide the phone number of the local municipal office that granted the franchise rights to the BB provider, along with instructions on what to say when calling ("Hi--I'm a registered voter in your district. If you'd like to get re-elected next term, you need to repeal the cable franchise agreement with broadband provider such-and-so, as their monopolistic practices are hampering my ability to freely choose what content I can consume.")
We're not powerless in this fight. We often take a victim mindset, and look for some other entity to rescue us; but that's not the right way to thrive. Instead of thinking that we're weak, we're victims, and can't protect ourselves, or that we need some other big, strong entity to shelter and protect us, we need to realize that we *are* strong. We *are* capable of standing up and fighting back. We *do* have power, and can say no to the bullies.
They want us to feel we have no say in the matter, that we cannot survive without protection.
But they are wrong.
We are strong. We are capable. We *can* fight back.
For example, in Patrick's case (he being a Bostonian still, I believe), the municipal cable office responsible for the cable franchises in the city are handled by: http://www.cityofboston.gov/contact/?id=35
How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
-- TTFN, patrick
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planni...
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
I don't think it's good for the consumer or the market; but I also don't think it's just up to the government to step in and try to protect the consumer and the market. There's a lot we can do to shape the outcome, if we just step up to the plate and make our voices (and our wallets) heard.
We are not victims.
We *are* the market.
Never forget; we have given them the power they currently have. And that means we can take it away again.
It won't be easy.
It won't be painless.
But it *can* be done.
Matt
participants (12)
-
Blaine -
Bob Evans -
Chris Boyd -
Jack Bates -
Jay Ashworth -
Jimmy Hess -
Joe Hamelin -
Matthew Petach -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Vitkovský Adam -
Wayne E Bouchard