On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:26 AM, G Rundlett <greg.rundl...@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 _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/