Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Mark Radabaugh]

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> 
> On the other hand, being considered Title II may be beneficial when you're 
> trying to get ROW access, pole attachments, and duct space.  So in that 
> respect I  think I'm benefiting from it now, and I worry about getting rid of 
> it.  
> 
> 
> -Adam

The pole access and ROW issues are being addressed in another proceeding and 
will remain and apply to broadband providers regardless of what happens with 
Title II.

Mark

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Adam Moffett]

Some points about NN that I don't see much discussion about:

An overwhelming majority of enforcement actions were against mobile 
carriers, and I think the biggest dissent is coming from that direction 
as well.  Cell phone companies have a history of vertical integration 
from the end user device up to the network edge.  They also have less 
bandwidth to work with and a shorter upgrade cycle as compared to a 
cable or fiber network.  They are being lumped in with other ISP's even 
though their business is (historically) different and they come from a 
different corporate culture.  The 2015 order gives them a nod saying 
their special needs will be considered in enforcement, but otherwise 
they get the same rules.  If I put myself in their shoes, I can see why 
there would be resistance.  Whether they're justified or not isn't my 
point.  All you have to do to see their side is reverse the roles and 
imagine the FCC making rules that required you to behave like a cell 
phone company.


I'm certain the open internet order doesn't hurt my employer.  I'm 
pretty sure it doesn't hurt most of you.  The biggest issue I see with 
keeping it is that we don't know where it will go from here.  Title II 
of the communications act gives the FCC a lot of power, which they said 
would be exercised on ISP's with a light touch.  What they said in 2015 
doesn't say anything about what a future set of commissioners will do.


On the other hand, being considered Title II may be beneficial when 
you're trying to get ROW access, pole attachments, and duct space.  So 
in that respect I  think I'm benefiting from it now, and I worry about 
getting rid of it.


I do not worry about any doom and gloom scenarios on either side.  I 
don't believe investment in networks will die if these rules stay in 
place, and I don't believe that open access will die without them.


-Adam


-- Original Message --
From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 11/28/2017 8:56:16 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

BTW, I am looking for someone that is pro NN and someone that is 
against it to come on ISP radio.  I can record you via phone or skype 
and then play it back if needed, so you don't have to be on live ..


Email me offlist if interested.


Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant
MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, 
MTCINE


For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
Office: 314-735-0270
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 9:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read



-- Original Message --
From: fiber...@mail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 11/27/2017 3:07:26 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read


I don't see
where he's blaming transit providers for anything.

 See the paragraphs in the middle about Cogent.


The transit provider
was an example of a technical point that most of the public is 
unaware

of, but which complicates the discussion.

 It complicates the discussion because it unnecessary conflates two
separate issues, last mile network neutrality and ASN 
interconnections.

If you want to talk about network neutrality, talk about network
neutrality. Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a
completely separate issue.

How traffic gets from the content provider to the end user is the 
issue, isn't it?  That typically involves 2-3 networks, if it's 
important how the last network in the chain handles it, why is it not 
important how the 1st, 2nd, or Nth network handles it?  I don't see how 
it's a separate issue.





 It's also an example of a way
the open internet order could be completely circumvented.get your
transit provider to do your traffic shaping.  They're not an ISP so
they don't count.

 That's still a better end result than having the last mile ISP
messing with your packets. At least this way you know that if you
manage to get your packets onto the ISP's network then they won't f*** 
with them.


 It's also quite unlikely that ISPs would collude with transit
providers to have them do their traffic shaping. The incentives simply
don't align. Far likelier is that the ISP would simply let their
transits run hot to create congestion.
You could be right.  I was thinking along different lines.like 
maybe the provider upstream would want more than the ISP is willing to 
pay for such a service.  If the ISP wants that function performed, and 
the law explicitly disallows the ISP while allowing the guys one level 
up to do it, then they may inadvertently create a market for traffic 
shaping among peers.  You could even insert a peer into the path on 
purpose just to do this for you.





 Peering policies have their own problems, but that's 

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Chuck McCown]

Steve Coran could do both sides.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Dennis Burgess <dmburg...@linktechs.net> wrote:
> 
> BTW, I am looking for someone that is pro NN and someone that is against it 
> to come on ISP radio.  I can record you via phone or skype and then play it 
> back if needed, so you don't have to be on live ..  
> 
> Email me offlist if interested.
> 
> 
> Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant 
> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
> 
> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
> Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com 
> Office: 314-735-0270
> E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 9:03 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read
> 
> 
> 
> -- Original Message --
> From: fiber...@mail.com
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 11/27/2017 3:07:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read
> 
>>> I don't see
>>> where he's blaming transit providers for anything.
>> See the paragraphs in the middle about Cogent.
>> 
>>> The transit provider
>>> was an example of a technical point that most of the public is unaware 
>>> of, but which complicates the discussion.
>> It complicates the discussion because it unnecessary conflates two 
>> separate issues, last mile network neutrality and ASN interconnections.
>> If you want to talk about network neutrality, talk about network 
>> neutrality. Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a 
>> completely separate issue.
>> 
> How traffic gets from the content provider to the end user is the issue, 
> isn't it?  That typically involves 2-3 networks, if it's important how the 
> last network in the chain handles it, why is it not important how the 1st, 
> 2nd, or Nth network handles it?  I don't see how it's a separate issue.
> 
>> 
>>> It's also an example of a way
>>> the open internet order could be completely circumvented.get your 
>>> transit provider to do your traffic shaping.  They're not an ISP so 
>>> they don't count.
>> That's still a better end result than having the last mile ISP 
>> messing with your packets. At least this way you know that if you 
>> manage to get your packets onto the ISP's network then they won't f*** with 
>> them.
>> 
>> It's also quite unlikely that ISPs would collude with transit 
>> providers to have them do their traffic shaping. The incentives simply 
>> don't align. Far likelier is that the ISP would simply let their 
>> transits run hot to create congestion.
> You could be right.  I was thinking along different lines.like maybe the 
> provider upstream would want more than the ISP is willing to pay for such a 
> service.  If the ISP wants that function performed, and the law explicitly 
> disallows the ISP while allowing the guys one level up to do it, then they 
> may inadvertently create a market for traffic shaping among peers.  You could 
> even insert a peer into the path on purpose just to do this for you.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Peering policies have their own problems, but that's a different 
>> kettle of fish. It's no secret that if network neutrality gets sorted 
>> out, some of the problems will move to interconnection issues.
>> 
> The last sentence might contradict your earlier statements that it's a 
> separate issue.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Can you point out the straw man?
>> Oh, there are so many. Here's a random selection:
>> - people want more competition. Network neutrality doesn't bring 
>> about more competition, so don't demand network neutrality.
>> - low value content will destroy the internet, don't demand network 
>> neutrality
>> - all bits are equal is a dangerous idea, don't demand network 
>> neutrality
>> - the Internet will cave in without SLAs on interconnects, don't 
>> demand network neutrality
>> - two sided markets will magically solve everything. Ignore 
>> termination monopolies, significant market power and don't demand 
>> network neutrality
>> - no ISP will ever do anything anti-competitive, that's a crazy idea, 
>> don't demand network neutrality
>> - networks are expensive, thus network neutrality should not be 
>> imposed
> A straw man argument is when the speaker re-states his opponent's case in a 
> way that makes it easier to argue against it. The speaker has constructed the 
> straw man so that he can destroy it easily. All but 

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Dennis Burgess]

BTW, I am looking for someone that is pro NN and someone that is against it to 
come on ISP radio.  I can record you via phone or skype and then play it back 
if needed, so you don't have to be on live ..  

Email me offlist if interested.


Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant 
MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com 
Office: 314-735-0270
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net 

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 9:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read



-- Original Message --
From: fiber...@mail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 11/27/2017 3:07:26 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

>>I don't see
>>where he's blaming transit providers for anything.
>  See the paragraphs in the middle about Cogent.
>
>>The transit provider
>>was an example of a technical point that most of the public is unaware 
>>of, but which complicates the discussion.
>  It complicates the discussion because it unnecessary conflates two 
>separate issues, last mile network neutrality and ASN interconnections.
>If you want to talk about network neutrality, talk about network 
>neutrality. Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a 
>completely separate issue.
>
How traffic gets from the content provider to the end user is the issue, isn't 
it?  That typically involves 2-3 networks, if it's important how the last 
network in the chain handles it, why is it not important how the 1st, 2nd, or 
Nth network handles it?  I don't see how it's a separate issue.

>
>>  It's also an example of a way
>>the open internet order could be completely circumvented.get your 
>>transit provider to do your traffic shaping.  They're not an ISP so 
>>they don't count.
>  That's still a better end result than having the last mile ISP 
>messing with your packets. At least this way you know that if you 
>manage to get your packets onto the ISP's network then they won't f*** with 
>them.
>
>  It's also quite unlikely that ISPs would collude with transit 
>providers to have them do their traffic shaping. The incentives simply 
>don't align. Far likelier is that the ISP would simply let their 
>transits run hot to create congestion.
You could be right.  I was thinking along different lines.like maybe the 
provider upstream would want more than the ISP is willing to pay for such a 
service.  If the ISP wants that function performed, and the law explicitly 
disallows the ISP while allowing the guys one level up to do it, then they may 
inadvertently create a market for traffic shaping among peers.  You could even 
insert a peer into the path on purpose just to do this for you.

>
>
>  Peering policies have their own problems, but that's a different 
>kettle of fish. It's no secret that if network neutrality gets sorted 
>out, some of the problems will move to interconnection issues.
>
The last sentence might contradict your earlier statements that it's a separate 
issue.

>
>
>>Can you point out the straw man?
>  Oh, there are so many. Here's a random selection:
>  - people want more competition. Network neutrality doesn't bring 
>about more competition, so don't demand network neutrality.
>  - low value content will destroy the internet, don't demand network 
>neutrality
>  - all bits are equal is a dangerous idea, don't demand network 
>neutrality
>  - the Internet will cave in without SLAs on interconnects, don't 
>demand network neutrality
>  - two sided markets will magically solve everything. Ignore 
>termination monopolies, significant market power and don't demand 
>network neutrality
>  - no ISP will ever do anything anti-competitive, that's a crazy idea, 
>don't demand network neutrality
>  - networks are expensive, thus network neutrality should not be 
>imposed
A straw man argument is when the speaker re-states his opponent's case in a way 
that makes it easier to argue against it. The speaker has constructed the straw 
man so that he can destroy it easily. All but the first of your examples are 
statements of the author's opinions, but restated in ways that are easier to 
argue against.  You are straw manning the author of the article with your 
examples of his straw manning.  Can you re-state them in ways that illustrate 
how he is misrepresenting his opponents?

I can see it with your first example, but not the others.  Your first example, 
"People want more competition" could be an example of straw manning, because 
people in favor of the net neutrality rules aren't really making an argument 
that it creates competition (that I've seen).  
On the other ha

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Mike Hammett]

" I don't see how it's a separate issue." 

One was "handled" by net neutrality regulations, the other was not. 

Peering is one world, cache boxes are another world, transit and DIA are 
related but different and then consumer broadband is another world. All should 
be handled independently as they're all very different. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 9:02:40 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read 



-- Original Message -- 
From: fiber...@mail.com 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: 11/27/2017 3:07:26 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read 

>>I don't see 
>>where he's blaming transit providers for anything. 
> See the paragraphs in the middle about Cogent. 
> 
>>The transit provider 
>>was an example of a technical point that most of the public is unaware 
>>of, but which complicates the discussion. 
> It complicates the discussion because it unnecessary conflates two 
>separate issues, last mile network neutrality and ASN interconnections. 
>If you want to talk about network neutrality, talk about network 
>neutrality. Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a 
>completely separate issue. 
> 
How traffic gets from the content provider to the end user is the issue, 
isn't it? That typically involves 2-3 networks, if it's important how 
the last network in the chain handles it, why is it not important how 
the 1st, 2nd, or Nth network handles it? I don't see how it's a 
separate issue. 

> 
>> It's also an example of a way 
>>the open internet order could be completely circumvented.get your 
>>transit provider to do your traffic shaping. They're not an ISP so 
>>they 
>>don't count. 
> That's still a better end result than having the last mile ISP messing 
>with your packets. At least this way you know that if you manage to get 
>your packets onto the ISP's network then they won't f*** with them. 
> 
> It's also quite unlikely that ISPs would collude with transit 
>providers to have them do their traffic shaping. The incentives simply 
>don't align. Far likelier is that the ISP would simply let their 
>transits run hot to create congestion. 
You could be right. I was thinking along different lines.like maybe 
the provider upstream would want more than the ISP is willing to pay for 
such a service. If the ISP wants that function performed, and the law 
explicitly disallows the ISP while allowing the guys one level up to do 
it, then they may inadvertently create a market for traffic shaping 
among peers. You could even insert a peer into the path on purpose just 
to do this for you. 

> 
> 
> Peering policies have their own problems, but that's a different 
>kettle of fish. It's no secret that if network neutrality gets sorted 
>out, some of the problems will move to interconnection issues. 
> 
The last sentence might contradict your earlier statements that it's a 
separate issue. 

> 
> 
>>Can you point out the straw man? 
> Oh, there are so many. Here's a random selection: 
> - people want more competition. Network neutrality doesn't bring about 
>more competition, so don't demand network neutrality. 
> - low value content will destroy the internet, don't demand network 
>neutrality 
> - all bits are equal is a dangerous idea, don't demand network 
>neutrality 
> - the Internet will cave in without SLAs on interconnects, don't 
>demand network neutrality 
> - two sided markets will magically solve everything. Ignore 
>termination monopolies, significant market power and don't demand 
>network neutrality 
> - no ISP will ever do anything anti-competitive, that's a crazy idea, 
>don't demand network neutrality 
> - networks are expensive, thus network neutrality should not be 
>imposed 
A straw man argument is when the speaker re-states his opponent's case 
in a way that makes it easier to argue against it. The speaker has 
constructed the straw man so that he can destroy it easily. All but the 
first of your examples are statements of the author's opinions, but 
restated in ways that are easier to argue against. You are straw 
manning the author of the article with your examples of his straw 
manning. Can you re-state them in ways that illustrate how he is 
misrepresenting his opponents? 

I can see it with your first example, but not the others. Your first 
example, "People want more competition" could be an example of straw 
manning, because people in favor of the net neutrality rules aren't 
really making an argument that it creates competition (that I've seen). 
On the other hand, I went back and can't find any mention of competiti

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Adam Moffett]

-- Original Message --
From: fiber...@mail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 11/27/2017 3:07:26 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read


I don't see
where he's blaming transit providers for anything.

 See the paragraphs in the middle about Cogent.


The transit provider
was an example of a technical point that most of the public is unaware
of, but which complicates the discussion.
 It complicates the discussion because it unnecessary conflates two 
separate issues, last mile network neutrality and ASN interconnections. 
If you want to talk about network neutrality, talk about network 
neutrality. Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a 
completely separate issue.


How traffic gets from the content provider to the end user is the issue, 
isn't it?  That typically involves 2-3 networks, if it's important how 
the last network in the chain handles it, why is it not important how 
the 1st, 2nd, or Nth network handles it?  I don't see how it's a 
separate issue.





 It's also an example of a way
the open internet order could be completely circumvented.get your
transit provider to do your traffic shaping.  They're not an ISP so 
they

don't count.
 That's still a better end result than having the last mile ISP messing 
with your packets. At least this way you know that if you manage to get 
your packets onto the ISP's network then they won't f*** with them.


 It's also quite unlikely that ISPs would collude with transit 
providers to have them do their traffic shaping. The incentives simply 
don't align. Far likelier is that the ISP would simply let their 
transits run hot to create congestion.
You could be right.  I was thinking along different lines.like maybe 
the provider upstream would want more than the ISP is willing to pay for 
such a service.  If the ISP wants that function performed, and the law 
explicitly disallows the ISP while allowing the guys one level up to do 
it, then they may inadvertently create a market for traffic shaping 
among peers.  You could even insert a peer into the path on purpose just 
to do this for you.





 Peering policies have their own problems, but that's a different 
kettle of fish. It's no secret that if network neutrality gets sorted 
out, some of the problems will move to interconnection issues.


The last sentence might contradict your earlier statements that it's a 
separate issue.






Can you point out the straw man?

 Oh, there are so many. Here's a random selection:
 - people want more competition. Network neutrality doesn't bring about 
more competition, so don't demand network neutrality.
 - low value content will destroy the internet, don't demand network 
neutrality
 - all bits are equal is a dangerous idea, don't demand network 
neutrality
 - the Internet will cave in without SLAs on interconnects, don't 
demand network neutrality
 - two sided markets will magically solve everything. Ignore 
termination monopolies, significant market power and don't demand 
network neutrality
 - no ISP will ever do anything anti-competitive, that's a crazy idea, 
don't demand network neutrality
 - networks are expensive, thus network neutrality should not be 
imposed
A straw man argument is when the speaker re-states his opponent's case 
in a way that makes it easier to argue against it. The speaker has 
constructed the straw man so that he can destroy it easily. All but the 
first of your examples are statements of the author's opinions, but 
restated in ways that are easier to argue against.  You are straw 
manning the author of the article with your examples of his straw 
manning.  Can you re-state them in ways that illustrate how he is 
misrepresenting his opponents?


I can see it with your first example, but not the others.  Your first 
example, "People want more competition" could be an example of straw 
manning, because people in favor of the net neutrality rules aren't 
really making an argument that it creates competition (that I've seen).  
On the other hand, I went back and can't find any mention of competition 
in the article.  I didn't re-read the whole thing, but ctrl+f says the 
words competition and compete are not present.


I want to restate that I think I'm mostly neutral on the topic.  I don't 
think removing the open internet order will have the effect that some 
commenters seem to be saying.  OTOH I also don't think the FCC Chairman 
or certain large providers are being up front about why they want to 
remove the rules.  I have suspicions about why, but my suspicions are 
mostly conjecture since these guys aren't really coming out and saying 
anything very convincing.  The Chairman was on TV arguing that we were 
doing fine without the rules and therefore we don't need them, and that 
seems to be all he's got.


The debate (on Facebook and Quora at least) annoys me to death because 
most people on both sides are making a case in which an outcome is 
claimed without building an effective case on how th

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Mike Hammett]

Traditionally, it would be Comcast's expense. Cogent doesn't pay to upgrade 
their connection to Midwest WiFi. Cogent was willing, Comcast was not. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 5:52:43 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read 

Furthermore, 

I don't necessary agree with this. 

Remember, Netflix is the one paying Cogent and Cogent is selling Netflix on the 
principle that it can get all of Netflix’s traffic into an ISP like Comcast. As 
a result, Cogent has to take all the necessary business steps to make sure 
Cogent has enough capacity to pass Netflix’s traffic on from Cogent’s network 
to Comcast. But Cogent isn’t doing that. 

Is that right, Cogent is responsible to upgrade peers with anyone who wishes to 
get traffic from them and/or pay to transit traffic from cogent? 

Is not a ISP someone who purchases bandwidth from a upstream, who can get them 
to the internet? Is that not what Comcast is doing.? 

Someone educate me? 



Dennis Burgess 
www.linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – dmburg...@linktechs.net 


-Original Message- 
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of fiber...@mail.com 
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 1:08 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read 

> https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-is-a-sham.html 

Nah, it falls down on its face pretty hard. 

Dan basically posits that it's all the fault of transit providers, completely 
ignoring the fact that the transit market is a competitive market whereas last 
mile providers have a termination monopoly. That's just silly. 

The article is also so full of straw men, it's almost like Dan is stocking up 
for a Guy Fawkes festival. 

Jared 

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Chuck McCown]

I presumed Cogent did it at the request of Comcast.  After all, Netflix 
creates less demand for their CATV offering.


-Original Message- 
From: Dennis Burgess

Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 4:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

I take two parts to this..

1. So when Cogent, a transit provider that sits in the middle of content 
owners and ISPs was caught prioritizing Netflix’s traffic into Comcast, why 
weren’t proponents of net neutrality up in arms? Why weren’t they calling on 
the FCC to do something? [Cogent Now Admits They Slowed Down Netflix’s 
Traffic, Creating A Fast Lane & Slow Lane]


2. The idea that an ISP is going to purposely slow down or degrade the 
experience of their user by harming Netflix, Amazon, or Apple’s content is 
ludicrous.


These are in two paragraphs, but still, don't these two sentences 
contradict one other?   Maybe I am wrong?


Guess the difference now that I look at it is one is a transit provider and 
the other is an ISP, the net neutrality order has nothing in it for transit 
providers, but cogent is a ISP as well with many lit buildings on-net, so 
where does that difference begin?


Just questions :)



Dennis Burgess
www.linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – dmburg...@linktechs.net


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of fiber...@mail.com
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

I think you're reading this through glasses tinted to whatever 
predisposition you have to the issue.

 Obvious I have my own biases, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong :)

 Now, I never claimed I was impartial or unbiased, but the article in 
question does not rise to the standard of "best NN article" or even try to 
be impartial or unbiased in any way. A lot of what Dan writes is true, but I 
do take exception to a lot of the framing and editorialization. It 
completely ignores the primary issues, the facts of termination monopoly and 
how lacking last mile competition influences network neutrality, while 
subtly laying the blame on other secondary issues.



"Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a completely separate 
issue."

That's what most people are pointing to as NN violations, though.

 Well, most people are idiots, so that doesn't count for much :)

 Jesting aside, the Internet order explicitly says:

 "30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to 
interconnection."


 Thus anybody claiming otherwise should just shut up.

Jared 

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Dennis Burgess]

Furthermore,

I don't necessary agree with this.

Remember, Netflix is the one paying Cogent and Cogent is selling Netflix on the 
principle that it can get all of Netflix’s traffic into an ISP like Comcast. As 
a result, Cogent has to take all the necessary business steps to make sure 
Cogent has enough capacity to pass Netflix’s traffic on from Cogent’s network 
to Comcast. But Cogent isn’t doing that.

Is that right, Cogent is responsible to upgrade peers with anyone who wishes to 
get traffic from them and/or pay to transit traffic from cogent? 

Is not a ISP someone who purchases bandwidth from a upstream, who can get them 
to the internet?  Is that not what Comcast is doing.?  

Someone educate me? 



Dennis Burgess
www.linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – dmburg...@linktechs.net 


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of fiber...@mail.com
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 1:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

> https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-is-a-sham.html

Nah, it falls down on its face pretty hard. 

Dan basically posits that it's all the fault of transit providers, completely 
ignoring the fact that the transit market is a competitive market whereas last 
mile providers have a termination monopoly. That's just silly. 

The article is also so full of straw men, it's almost like Dan is stocking up 
for a Guy Fawkes festival. 

Jared


 

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Dennis Burgess]

I take two parts to this.. 

1. So when Cogent, a transit provider that sits in the middle of content owners 
and ISPs was caught prioritizing Netflix’s traffic into Comcast, why weren’t 
proponents of net neutrality up in arms? Why weren’t they calling on the FCC to 
do something? [Cogent Now Admits They Slowed Down Netflix’s Traffic, Creating A 
Fast Lane & Slow Lane]

2. The idea that an ISP is going to purposely slow down or degrade the 
experience of their user by harming Netflix, Amazon, or Apple’s content is 
ludicrous.

These are in two paragraphs, but still, don't these two sentences  contradict 
one other?   Maybe I am wrong? 

Guess the difference now that I look at it is one is a transit provider and the 
other is an ISP, the net neutrality order has nothing in it for transit 
providers, but cogent is a ISP as well with many lit buildings on-net, so  
where does that difference begin?  

Just questions :) 



Dennis Burgess
www.linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – dmburg...@linktechs.net 


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of fiber...@mail.com
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

> I think you're reading this through glasses tinted to whatever predisposition 
> you have to the issue.
  Obvious I have my own biases, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong :)

  Now, I never claimed I was impartial or unbiased, but the article in question 
does not rise to the standard of "best NN article" or even try to be impartial 
or unbiased in any way. A lot of what Dan writes is true, but I do take 
exception to a lot of the framing and editorialization. It completely ignores 
the primary issues, the facts of termination monopoly and how lacking last mile 
competition influences network neutrality, while subtly laying the blame on 
other secondary issues. 


> "Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a completely separate issue."
> That's what most people are pointing to as NN violations, though.
  Well, most people are idiots, so that doesn't count for much :)

  Jesting aside, the Internet order explicitly says:

  "30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to 
interconnection."

  Thus anybody claiming otherwise should just shut up. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[fiberrun]

> I think you're reading this through glasses tinted to whatever predisposition 
> you have to the issue.
  Obvious I have my own biases, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong :)

  Now, I never claimed I was impartial or unbiased, but the article in question 
does not rise to the standard of "best NN article" or even try to be impartial 
or unbiased in any way. A lot of what Dan writes is true, but I do take 
exception to a lot of the framing and editorialization. It completely ignores 
the primary issues, the facts of termination monopoly and how lacking last mile 
competition influences network neutrality, while subtly laying the blame on 
other secondary issues. 


> "Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a completely separate issue."
> That's what most people are pointing to as NN violations, though.
  Well, most people are idiots, so that doesn't count for much :)

  Jesting aside, the Internet order explicitly says:

  "30. But this Order does not apply the open Internet rules to 
interconnection."

  Thus anybody claiming otherwise should just shut up. 

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Mike Hammett]

I think you're reading this through glasses tinted to whatever predisposition 
you have to the issue. 

"Don't bring peering policies into it, as that's a completely separate issue." 
That's what most people are pointing to as NN violations, though. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: fiber...@mail.com 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 2:07:25 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read 

> I don't see 
> where he's blaming transit providers for anything. 
See the paragraphs in the middle about Cogent. 

> The transit provider 
> was an example of a technical point that most of the public is unaware 
> of, but which complicates the discussion. 
It complicates the discussion because it unnecessary conflates two separate 
issues, last mile network neutrality and ASN interconnections. If you want to 
talk about network neutrality, talk about network neutrality. Don't bring 
peering policies into it, as that's a completely separate issue. 

> It's also an example of a way 
> the open internet order could be completely circumvented.get your 
> transit provider to do your traffic shaping. They're not an ISP so they 
> don't count. 
That's still a better end result than having the last mile ISP messing with 
your packets. At least this way you know that if you manage to get your packets 
onto the ISP's network then they won't f*** with them. 

It's also quite unlikely that ISPs would collude with transit providers to have 
them do their traffic shaping. The incentives simply don't align. Far likelier 
is that the ISP would simply let their transits run hot to create congestion. 

Peering policies have their own problems, but that's a different kettle of 
fish. It's no secret that if network neutrality gets sorted out, some of the 
problems will move to interconnection issues. 


> Can you point out the straw man? 
Oh, there are so many. Here's a random selection: 
- people want more competition. Network neutrality doesn't bring about more 
competition, so don't demand network neutrality. 
- low value content will destroy the internet, don't demand network neutrality 
- all bits are equal is a dangerous idea, don't demand network neutrality 
- the Internet will cave in without SLAs on interconnects, don't demand network 
neutrality 
- two sided markets will magically solve everything. Ignore termination 
monopolies, significant market power and don't demand network neutrality 
- no ISP will ever do anything anti-competitive, that's a crazy idea, don't 
demand network neutrality 
- networks are expensive, thus network neutrality should not be imposed 

Jared 

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[fiberrun]

> I don't see 
> where he's blaming transit providers for anything. 
  See the paragraphs in the middle about Cogent. 

> The transit provider 
> was an example of a technical point that most of the public is unaware 
> of, but which complicates the discussion.
  It complicates the discussion because it unnecessary conflates two separate 
issues, last mile network neutrality and ASN interconnections. If you want to 
talk about network neutrality, talk about network neutrality. Don't bring 
peering policies into it, as that's a completely separate issue. 

>  It's also an example of a way 
> the open internet order could be completely circumvented.get your 
> transit provider to do your traffic shaping.  They're not an ISP so they 
> don't count.
  That's still a better end result than having the last mile ISP messing with 
your packets. At least this way you know that if you manage to get your packets 
onto the ISP's network then they won't f*** with them. 

  It's also quite unlikely that ISPs would collude with transit providers to 
have them do their traffic shaping. The incentives simply don't align. Far 
likelier is that the ISP would simply let their transits run hot to create 
congestion. 

  Peering policies have their own problems, but that's a different kettle of 
fish. It's no secret that if network neutrality gets sorted out, some of the 
problems will move to interconnection issues. 


> Can you point out the straw man?
  Oh, there are so many. Here's a random selection:
  - people want more competition. Network neutrality doesn't bring about more 
competition, so don't demand network neutrality. 
  - low value content will destroy the internet, don't demand network neutrality
  - all bits are equal is a dangerous idea, don't demand network neutrality
  - the Internet will cave in without SLAs on interconnects, don't demand 
network neutrality 
  - two sided markets will magically solve everything. Ignore termination 
monopolies, significant market power and don't demand network neutrality 
  - no ISP will ever do anything anti-competitive, that's a crazy idea, don't 
demand network neutrality 
  - networks are expensive, thus network neutrality should not be imposed

Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Mathew Howard]

One of my biggest problems with the whole NN thing, is the fact that all
the reasons people list for needing it aren't things that have ever really
happened (or they were resolved one way or another without NN). It seems to
me the best thing to do is get rid of the (apparently) pointless
regulations and if real problems do show up, put some rules in place that
specifically fix those problems.

The most common argument seems to be things like Netflix will get blocked
unless you pay extra - but the fact is, no major ISP is going to do that
unless they're suicidal. Even if they're in an area where they currently
have a de-facto monopoly, if they start pulling stuff like that, that's
going to be a huge opportunity for competition to come in.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

>
>
> https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-is-a-sham.html
>>>
>>
>> Nah, it falls down on its face pretty hard.
>>
>> Dan basically posits that it's all the fault of transit providers,
>> completely ignoring the fact that the transit market is a competitive
>> market whereas last mile providers have a termination monopoly. That's just
>> silly.
>>
>> The article is also so full of straw men, it's almost like Dan is
>> stocking up for a Guy Fawkes festival.
>>
>> Jared
>>
>
> He points out that the public debate is entirely about ideology.  Nobody
> has real data, or those who have real data don't share it.  I don't see
> where he's blaming transit providers for anything.  The transit provider
> was an example of a technical point that most of the public is unaware of,
> but which complicates the discussion.  It's also an example of a way the
> open internet order could be completely circumvented.get your transit
> provider to do your traffic shaping.  They're not an ISP so they don't
> count.
>
> Can you point out the straw man?
>
> I consider myself neutral on this topic.  I'm willing to consider
> arguments, but my problem is that nobody has coherent arguments.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Adam Moffett]

https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-is-a-sham.html


Nah, it falls down on its face pretty hard.

Dan basically posits that it's all the fault of transit providers, 
completely ignoring the fact that the transit market is a competitive 
market whereas last mile providers have a termination monopoly. That's 
just silly.


The article is also so full of straw men, it's almost like Dan is 
stocking up for a Guy Fawkes festival.


Jared


He points out that the public debate is entirely about ideology.  Nobody 
has real data, or those who have real data don't share it.  I don't see 
where he's blaming transit providers for anything.  The transit provider 
was an example of a technical point that most of the public is unaware 
of, but which complicates the discussion.  It's also an example of a way 
the open internet order could be completely circumvented.get your 
transit provider to do your traffic shaping.  They're not an ISP so they 
don't count.


Can you point out the straw man?

I consider myself neutral on this topic.  I'm willing to consider 
arguments, but my problem is that nobody has coherent arguments.

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[fiberrun]

> https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-is-a-sham.html

Nah, it falls down on its face pretty hard. 

Dan basically posits that it's all the fault of transit providers, completely 
ignoring the fact that the transit market is a competitive market whereas last 
mile providers have a termination monopoly. That's just silly. 

The article is also so full of straw men, it's almost like Dan is stocking up 
for a Guy Fawkes festival. 

Jared


 

Re: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Adam Moffett]

This highlights something I've been complaining about.

I found the open internet order to be mostly harmless, possibly 
pointless.  I'm neutral on whether it stays or goes.  Literally 
*Everyone* I've heard talking about it on both sides is presenting an 
argument that is not based on any facts.  Literally all arguments don't 
hold up to basic scrutiny.


Most Pro neutrality people argue that the internet will be destroyed 
without net neutrality rules, and offer no evidence that this will 
happen.  A handful have lists of bad behaviors that ISP's have engaged 
in, such as Madison River blocking competing VoIP services, but for the 
most part they're listing activities that the offender was punished for 
without any Net Neutrality rules in place.


The other camp basically says rules are bad because rules are bad.  They 
also offer no compelling evidence.



-- Original Message --
From: "Mike Hammett" <af...@ics-il.net>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 11/27/2017 10:38:37 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read


https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-is-a-sham.html



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> 
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> 
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>

Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> 
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix>

The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>


<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>

[AFMUG] Best NN Article I've Read

[Mike Hammett]

https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-is-a-sham.html 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP