Decius wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
Unfortunetly being "informed" of the issue doesn't lead people to the root problem. It just polarizes everyone on the basis of "big business" versus "freedom", which is utterly insane. The issue has always been, and will continue to be, monopoly of access to the resource. The best solution to that which I've heard is to put the plant into a public trust and force every provider to lease it. In my mind, that's still suboptimal, but it's better than what we have today.

Thanks for these comments. I agree. I don't think a blanket promise of "network neutrality" is the right way to resolve the issue. Basically I think that a more nuanced approach of case by case analysis will work better. Net Neutrality is a good principal that can guide that debate, but it shouldn't be a law. There are all kinds of ways to provide enhanced performance for particular applications that I don't think we want to ban. Akami is a simple example. I also think there are clearly examples that are anti-competitive that perhaps we ought to ban in monopoly situations, such as the context where an ISP drops all traffic from a competitors VoIP offering.

I think there are cases in the middle that I'm not sure how I'd resolve. For example, in France, you can get an ATM (yup) circuit run to your house, with three IP connections running on it. One of these connections provides general internet access, one provides IPTV, and one provides Voice over IP. Each has it's own virtual circuit back to the phone company's POP with a fixed bandwidth. All three are essentially ethernet sub interfaces on your home lan. You can IP your laptop on the IPTV address space but it won't do you much good because there is no transit gateway on that network. Now, I'll bet that the VoIP you get down that VoIP VC is much more reliable than the VoIP you could get down the general internet pipe from another company. Should it be illegal for phone companies in the US to do the same thing? I don't see why.

That's pretty much how DOCSIS works on cable. There are devoted channels for separate IP services and they are QoS'd at layer 2. Ironically, on the telco side, ATM has gone the way of the dodo bird because everyone fell in love with IP. Besides the fact that IP is much much cheaper, it has delivered us to this place where in order to get the same control that you had with ATM, we're now having to dink around with crap like net neutrality. I agree that it should be the service provider's choice on how to engineer and provision their network. The problem in the US (nay, the world, let's get real) is that the last mile providers ALWAYS use this as a bargaining chip to protect their monopoly status. So in effect, you have to fight fire with fire. That system is stupid and needs to be repealed. Open up the competition and get rid of the regulation. Doing one or the other will not solve the problem.

I can see how they might use this sort of issue as a wedge in the debate about infrastructure improvements, but if thats the case I think this video is them winning. I think what we really need is leadership from Congress and perhaps the FCC that says we need more bandwidth, and I think debating net neutrality diverts attention that discussion.

That's precisely the point. The telecom industry plays DC like a master fiddler. They're doing this on purpose and it has a high strategic relevance. You will continue to see the US fall in relative terms to the rest of the world in bandwidth availability (and ultimately innovation, and economic growth) until they get what they want. They're going to use upgrades as the stick. We should've had FTTH back in 1992. It was available and doable. Think about THAT for minute.

RE: Save the Internet!