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

[David Matusiak <dave AT matusiak.org>]

Great discussion from both sides!  I have learned a great deal and
been forced to examine the issue in new ways.  Thanks!   David M.


On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Matt Drew <matt.drew AT gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
> ---