We need a better Internet in America

Benjamin Scott dragonhawk at gmail.com
Thu Apr 8 09:47:43 EDT 2010


On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:26 AM, G Rundlett <greg.rundlett at gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope to not only preserve an open Internet, but to expand it.

  Please explain "open Internet".

  The Internet is not "open" in the sense of a public park, and never
has been.  Not in the US, anyway.  That idea is a romantic myth.
We've been over that before.  I refer people to the archive link I
posted earlier.  Short version: It's always been a controlled
government project, and/or privately-owned commercial networks which
let you connect to them for a fee.

  You want to argue the Internet should be a public utility, okie
dokie.  I might even agree.  But don't claim to be fighting to
preserve something that doesn't exist, because you might just preserve
what we have now, and end up unhappy.

> ... it's already fact that in America
> broadband is treated more like a luxury service (only for those who can
> afford it) rather than a public commons that benefits all.

  Information may want to be free, but infrastructure wants to be paid
for.  If you know a way to make infrastructure not cost money, please
speak up.

> To those who think regulation is the aim, that's not the point.

  I have to disagree with you there.  You say you want the FCC to have
jurisdiction.  The FCC is a regulatory agency.

  This is what I mean when I say I hate "net neutrality".  I might
actually *support* some regulatory measures, if the people who want
them would stop shouting "FREEDOM!!!" and start calmly discussing
specifics.

> There was no regulation in the first place.

  Well, I would argue that the ARPANET/NSFNET days had some pretty
clear rules (albeit not always enforced).  Since the 'net has moved to
a commercial model, it's been largely unregulated, yes.  That's what
we have now.  But you don't seem to be happy with that we have now.

> Just a statement of principle that consumers are entitled to freedom and choice.

  Statements of principles are nice.  I think that one has a
particularly nice ring to it.  That and a few bucks will get you a cup
of coffee.

> I personally know from first-hand experience that it's bad when Comcast (a
> practical monopoly) slows your (paid) service to a crawl because you're
> (legally) downloading files from open source projects.

  It's bad *for you*.  It's likely better for other people on your
optical node.  It's certainly better for Comcast's transit costs.
Bandwidth is not an unlimited resource.  Comcast Internet is a flat
rate service.  So either they place limits on usage, or people can
overload the system without any repercussions.

  Any time a provider suggests going to metered service levels (which
would allow heavy uses to use more bandwidth, but fairly), almost
everybody screams bloody murder.

  It seems like most people just want a free lunch.  I'll side with
Comcast in laughing at that.

> I also know from
> first-hand experience that it's bad when Comcast seemingly interferes with
> the quality of competitor's VOIP traffic to the point where you're forced to
> quit and sign up for Comcast's competing service. [3]

  The source you cite openly admits it completely lacks any technical
detail.  One could just as easily read it as saying Comcast will
prioritize VoIP traffic, where before it was treated as any other
traffic, thus subject to greater congestion.

  You don't need to *do* anything to disrupt VoIP communications.
Simply *not* doing anything is enough.  I know from experience that if
you don't use a good QoS configuration, VoIP on a gigabit Ethernet
fiber link will go into the mud every time a large file is copied.

  Certainly, if Comcast *is* de-prioritizing their competition, that's
a problem.  It might even be actionable under anti-trust laws.  If a
company controls as much of the network transport market as Comcast
does, I don't think they should be allowed to de-prioritize their
competition at the application layer.  (That's an example of the sort
of specific regulation I would support.)

> What's the solution if Comcast doesn't want to play nice?  I'm not sure.

  Your second sentence highlights my biggest concern.  Calling for
regulation without an idea of *what* you want is a recipe for trouble.
 You're upset because you have insufficient control over Comcast, but
as a solution you instead want to give control to someone else and let
them make the decisions for you.

> But, I do have the opinion that a commonly owned infrastructure
> (aka government or public) would seem lower cost than having multiple large
> investments competing to create networks.

  Hey, a specific!  Took us long enough to get there.  :)

  Structural separation is the idea I like best out of the ideas I've
heard, in theory.  My big concern is that I'm not sure it's
realistically possible in the US.  A small number of big companies own
most of the infrastructure.  Building it all again for public use
would cost a lot, and that's not likely to get taxpayer approval.
Seizing existing infrastructure by eminent domain makes more sense
from a cost concern, but that would be a *huge* political/legal fight
from the current owners.  And I wouldn't entirely disagree with the
opposition; having the government seize property that I've invested my
own time and money in isn't an idea I like.

  Independent wireless networks might be a viable alternative in many
areas.  There are local ISPs who do that, and I've had excellent
results dealing with such.  Hard to do in hilly rural communities,
though.

  It may well be that regulation of large providers like Comcast is
the best option, given real-world considerations.  But I would want
some specifics before I put my support behind anything.  I find that
poorly considered rules are often as bad, or worse, as the lack of
rules.

> Maybe the FCC can provide good checks and balances in the system.  If they
> don't, at least you have some representation with the FCC.

  You have some representation with Comcast, too.  Just very little
representation.  I find it's about the same with the FCC and agencies
like it.  Look how restrictive radio spectrum is managed in this
country.  Look how the NH PUC has handled the Verizon/FairPoint
debacle.

  Bad car analogy time: You're a passenger on a bus.  You don't like
where the driver (Comcast) is taking you.  So you want to kick Comcast
out of the driver's seat and put another driver there (FCC).  But you
don't propose to tell the FCC where you want to go, either.  So why
should you suppose you'll like where you end up with the FCC driving?

-- Ben



More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list