Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Matt Drew <matt.drew AT gmail.com>]

> created. So yes, they should have my interests at heart if my
> interests are served by having a cheap network accessible by all
> (which they are).

They *should* - but do they?  Can they take time out from policing
wardrobe malfunctions and late night comedians using the F word long
enough to do something useful?  Perhaps - but I wouldn't bet on it.

>> You talk to your representatives about Time Warner's prices?  Why is
>> that?
>
> Because they are and should be regulated.

Part of the difference between us is that you look at Time Warner and
see a company that is regulated.  I look at Time Warner and see a
company that is protected.  They just raised their rates into the
teeth of the worst recession we've seen in a hundred years and no one
even blinked - *except* in the areas where they are competing with
Uverse or FiOS.  When was the last time Time Warner was "regulated"
into not doing something?  Ah, right, when a lot of angry customers
barely managed to stall a bill that would have made it harder or
perhaps impossible for local municipalities to create their own
networks in competition with Time Warner.  That's the kind of
regulation we're going to get.  It needs to be stopped, not
encouraged.

> Look: I think we may be
> talking past each other because you seem to think I want /more/
> regulation, and I seem to think you want /less/.

The current Net Neutrality bill in Congress is legislation that puts
certain limits on ISPs and calls on the FCC to enforce them, which is
what I would generally call regulation.  Your initial post was
criticizing various groups for not supporting it.  I don't know you
personally, so I can only gather information from what was written,
which was strongly supportive of the Net Neutrality regulation.  I
interpreted that as wanting more regulation, and I'm not sure how it
can seen any other way.

And you are certainly correct in thinking that I want less regulation.
 The various agreements and franchise gifts that guard Time Warner's,
AT&T's, and Verizon's tight control of last-mile landlines needs to
go.  Bills like the one that would have made the city of Wilson's
network difficult or impossible to build need to be stopped.  There's
a place for regulation: for example, cell phone provider's ability to
blatantly lie in their advertisements about unlimited 3G internet
needs to be dealt with (unlimited != 5GB per month cap, guys).
Fortunately, we have those regulations in place - they simply need to
be enforced.

> answer either. What I want is competent people at all levels of
> government who are interested in policy based on evidence, government
> based on science. Science!

I do as well.  What existing problem will the current Net Neutrality
legislation solve?  There isn't one to us as citizens, although there
is the threat of one, like clouds on the horizon.  However, this
legislation would solve several of Google's problems and build
protection around their market share, which is why they are pushing
it.  However, I'm not interested in protecting Google's market share
or solving their problems - hence, I can understand completely why
many civil liberties groups and others are not supporting this
legislation.

> So let's turn this around: what do you think are appropriate levels of
> oversight for last-mile wire communications? For middle mile? What

The appropriate level of oversight is to make sure that people are not
being defrauded or ripped off, that they are getting what they are
paying for.  We need to make sure that companies are not protecting
their business with franchise agreements that bar competition, or
various schemes to force small competitors into untenable positions
with things like reporting requirements, such as what Time Warner
tried to do.  We need to make sure that providers are observing the
right-of-way requirements so that they aren't doing underhanded things
like cutting each others' connections (this has happened to me).
There's plenty of things that need oversight that aren't getting it
right now.

> role should the government have in communications infrastructure
> upgrades? What I'm worried about very specifically is Internet access.

As little as possible, to allow for maximum competition and better service.

> Who has access? Who doesn't? How much do they pay? What kind of
> connection do they get? Tell me please how you think we'll get the
> best possible answers to those questions. If you give me a hand-wavy
> free market answer, I'm going to laugh and abandon hope for a
> reasonable dialogue here.

So the only possible solution involves government regulation - despite
the fact that it was government regulation that caused at least a
significant portion of the current problems?

Everyone has access, gigabit to their house for free.  Of course,
that's not possible without spending resources, time, and money, and
it will never be free because such networks require maintenance.  The
best way to get people to do that efficiently is through encouraging
competition in the market.  For example, in South Korea there are
three major internet providers, no franchises, no restrictions on
duplicate infrastructure, and they are now testing gigabit over fiber
to people's homes.

Random Google research result 
((http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20032/Yun.pdf):

"Abstract
In recent years, Korea has seen a remarkable diffusion in broadband
Internet connections.  This paper explores the actions and factors
contributing to this diffusion from three viewpoints: public sector,
private sector, and social. We suggest that the matching of demand and
supply is the most important factor in the fast diffusion of broadband
in Korea. In particular, fierce infrastructure competition has led to
quality services at a low fixed price.  We also consider two
challenges that lie ahead: take-up of retail e-commerce applications,
and the need to bridge the digital divide."

I'll also direct you to page 15:

"In line with the deregulation and competition policies in the
telecommunications sector, the Internet market was led by the same
principle. Before broadband Internet emerged, the government
introduced competition in the local and long distance call sectors by
giving licenses to multiple carriers. In this process, for instance,
the Ministry of Information and Communication granted Hanaro Telecom
Inc. a license for a local call carrier to compete against Korea
Telecom. This promoted the development of high-speed Internet access
infrastructure, and facilitated open competition in the high-speed
Internet market. The intense competition led to a relatively low
price, and subsequently a rapid increase in demand."

Their intentional public policy was de-regulation and competition, and
it leads exactly to where you want to go.  So while you might see the
market solution as "hand-wavy", we have strong evidence that it is
highly effective at achieving the goal you state.  Now, South Korea
isn't the U.S..  Our infrastructure costs are higher as our population
is far less dense.  There are real life limitations to how easy it is
to do various things - for example, providing internet access to
people who live in remote regions is more difficult.  We may not get
gigabit to every house.  But it seems very likely that we'll get the
best system we can within our limitations by doing what they did -
enhancing competition and removing government protections of
incumbents.

> Again, it is wildly inefficient and not in the public interest to have
> more than one set of last mile cables, and if those cables are laid

If duplicate, "inefficient" infrastructure accomplished your goal of
low prices and high levels of access, isn't that a small price to pay?
 And in fact, we have accidentally ended up with redundant
infrastructure in many places due to phone lines and cable lines both
being used for internet access.  Verizon is rolling out a third
duplicate infrastructure with FiOS.  Inefficient?  Certainly, but it
is getting us where we want to go, just very slowly.

> down by completely private investment with no public funds, rights of
> way, etc. etc. then we don't have a legal leg for regulation and
> oversight, but the fact of the matter is that the current incumbents
> /did/ get a lot of government support to build their existing
> networks, so it /does/ make sense that they would be regulated. You

I would argue that what we need to do is stop supporting them and
their antiquated and exploitative business models.  I think we've dug
ourselves quite deep enough.

> seem to be somehow suggesting that if we said tomorrow that Internet
> Service as provided by cable, telephone, and wireless companies cannot
> be regulated by the FCC, we'd see sudden and dramatic investment in
> infrastructure that would benefit consumers. Please tell me that's not

Of course not - there are many other barriers to competition that the
large telecoms and cable companies have entrenched in our government.
But we don't need to add more, we need start removing the ones that
are there.

> what you're suggesting, because let's ask for a second: who would pay
> for that dramatic investment of capital? Who has the incentive?

Verizon?  I can't imagine they are spending billions on FiOS for
kicks.  AT&T?  Uverse isn't cheap.  There are many other companies
trying to do similar things, from parallel cable infrastructue to
wireless internet.  The capital and the incentive are obviously
present in spades, and the demand has never been higher.

> Foreign companies? What happens if 60% of our Internet infrastructure
> ends up owned and managed by a foreign entity with no oversight?

One, why would that matter, and two, why would there be no oversight?
Well, I take that back - it might slow down our own government from
snooping on all our communications like they do now.  Which might be a
good idea ...

> Please tell me what these two ways are. I'm confused.

The first way is open competition in the market with as few rules as
possible.  The second is government mandates of what is "fair" and
regulations that attempt to control every aspect of broadband
provision.

> Lastly, here's the problem with giving up on talking to our
> legislators and regulators about what we think they should do: TWC
> won't give up. If you write off government as useless and in the way,
> TWC and other incumbents will cheer, because in taking your ball and
> going home, they've won the game by default. We need intelligent,
> engaged people talking to their legislators and regulators, and as
> much as I would like to flatter myself, I know I'm nowhere near as
> effective as a registered lobbyist who shows up every day at the
> capitol, BUT if there are enough of us speaking up, our interests can
> still win out, especially because we have logic and science on our
> side. Please, please don't give up on our government. Large corporate
> interests win when we are hopeless and apathetic, and they win at our
> expense.

When did I mention giving up?  When did I mention being hopeless and
apathetic?  If we do that, it is indeed true that lobbyists and
corporations will get what they want - government enforced monopolies
and protections that allow them to act like Time Warner and AT&T do
today.  We'll have to fight for our interests every step of the way.
Being engaged is the only way to protect ourselves.  Government is far
from useless - it's a dangerous tool that causes huge ripples of
unintentional side effects, and is best used lightly and only when
absolutely necessary.  Using it to "fix" a problem that currently is
almost entirely theoretical is a bad idea, *especially* when the
support behind the effort is newer corporations intent on getting the
same kinds of protections as the ones we're currently "regulating".

Matt