Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


Dave Williamson davewill here birdie birdie, get in my belly!
  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    Let's not lose track of the 3 key parts involved here:

    1. Supply side.  These are providers who put packets onto the network.

    2. Network.  This is the collision based network system created many moons ago.

    3. Consumption side.  These are the consumers of the network packets from a provider.


    The Supply side is where the Netflix and Level 3 type of peering issue(s) resides.

    The Network is where the dropping of packets can and by design does occur.

    The Consumption side is where local ISPs a) have been given monopolies as an incentive to spend a huge amount of money to implement last mile network cabling, and b) have a end user subscription model that intentionally over subscribes actual bandwidth.

    Yes Consumers can also be Providers and vice-versa as well as Network providers can also be a Consumer or Provider in addition.  However, I think we need to partition the discussion to the 3 parts individually or we will never come to any type of solution.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    1) The FCC apparently needs to hear from every living soul in the country.  4 million people commented already, but it's not enough?!?!?


    Thanks for the link.  Bless her. I wanted to reach out and give her a hug with life energy (sounded like she was about to keel over).

    As for the 4 million.  They didn't say what the context of those 4 million feedback inputs were, how many were duplicates of the same entity, how many were for or against ... but lets assume all 4 million were unique requests for one side ... that is still a small percentage of the broadband customer base.  Just looking at a quick search turned up some 2011 numbers


    and here is just some numbers for verizon



    When policies that impact entire markets are up for discussion the numbers need to be overwhelming and not 1% or 2%.



    2) Very often during the debate, the panelist who was against NN would make a statement of fact and it would be immediately refuted.  This wasn't of the "well hey, that's like just your opinion, man" kind of refutes, it was more like "What you just said was utterly false and here is proof".


    Yea. I'm not sure who this was but it was weird.


    3) Classification as Title II would not require broadband providers to follow every rule.  The FCC can pick and choose, so I'm sure any change will have limited teeth.


    I'm not sure what their approval process is when they refer to "pick and choose".  If the approval isn't from outside the FCC then "pick and choose" is open for abuse.  Checks and balances are a must.  It wouldn't surprise me if this pick and choose exists today for other matters of their jurisdiction. However, continuing such a pattern is not palatable.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , ScanIAm wrote

    There is no 'the regulator', there are 10s of thousands of little regulators that provide client side monopolies.  Turn that around and the content providers face the same issue.

    Oh come on. Weeds.  We are on the same page here.


    If someone suggested that instead of net neutrality, we force cities and counties to let every tom, dick, and isp dig up the roads to lay cable, it would be even worse. 

    We don't know how they will implement it.  It has not been done.  They might lease bandwidth on existing lines or come up with all kinds of creative solutions.


    I agree that monopoly protection for ISP providers should end, but I would hope you would be able to see that providing fast lanes is not a solution.  And, since we are on the topic of how well the market would respond, remember that nothing currently stops the ISPs from charging Netflix, google, or whoever more money for the volume of traffic they send over the wire, but they don't because the smaller guys will eat their lunch.  This whole 'faster lane' crap is being discussed as yet another form of rent-seeking.  They are providing what nobody is asking for and a price nobody wants because they can get away with it.

    If "fast lane" is being equated to "biggest bandwidth consumer" (which I'm not sure that is what your saying) then I don't see why the biggest bandwidth consumer isn't paying the biggest chunk of money.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , mstefanik wrote

    @davewill:There's the saying, and then there's the doing. Exactly how would you "open up the competition" between providers such that they wouldn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming into relinquishing their regional monopolies, and without additional regulation, which you clearly dislike?

    While imperfect, reclassifying them under Title II would be a concrete step to address the issue.

    The regional monopoly protection is provided by the regulator.  Once the regulator stops providing this protection they will not be kicking and screaming.  Rather they will be changing their operations to either thrive or die.

    I don't really see how this is any different than say the span of physical coverage the shipping industry covers (i.e. FedEx and UPS).

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , ScanIAm wrote


    Hmmmm...I'm agreeing with you that monopolies are bad, but I don't feel like we are making a real connection here.  Must be the 50 year old copper lines in my neighborhood :)

    I recognize that onerous regulation can be a problem, but what you seem to be fighting for is to allow incumbent ISPs to continue to raise rates while providing no better service under the false idea that regulation of any kind is bad.  Only Bad regulation is bad.  

    If you think net neutrality is a bad thing, what do you think would be a better way to address the issues resolved by net neutrality?  The providers haven't given a valid argument for why they need to do this, just that they want to do so.

    So far the theme seems to be:

    1. Prices are too high.

    2. Margins are too large.

    3. Product quality offered is too low.

    All three of those are naturally balanced in a competitive market.  So open up the competition and let's ignore this more-regulation distraction.

    Unless ..... some or all of those 3 things aren't true.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , ScanIAm wrote


    For the same reason that we cannot seem to end the monopolies.  Right of way contracts were negotiated decades ago to the exclusion of competition.  If I could buy some cable, run it underground between my house and my chosen isp, I would.  And I'd buy fiber because I don't want crappy speeds, but I can't because laws, ordinances, regulations, and right-of-way.

    Exactly.  So let's add more regulation to a problem that can't be corrected because of existing regulation that no one put an explicit end date on.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion


    , mstefanik wrote

    *snip* Low bandwidth and high-cost Internet access with terribad service penetration outside of urban areas.*snip*

    Sounds like a great opportunity for a competitor to come in and enjoy a great market.  Yet they haven't.  Why is that?

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    @mstefanik: And thus the rabbit hole.  The customer's business is limited to their agreement not some other company's agreement.  If they don't like their service then go elsewhere or provide feedback to their provider who can go elsewhere.

    Now if you are saying up the provider stack is a pyramid shape then I don't believe that.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , mstefanik wrote


    And then you have the so-called free market reforms to the energy market in California that resulted in an massive increase in energy costs. Regardless, the direct impact on consumer prices is just one aspect of this. By classifying them as Title II common carriers, all of those secret peering deals that these backbone providers are doing in the shadows would be shoved out into the light of day. That alone is reason enough to do it, in my opinion.

    Secret peering deals.  I think that is called an agreement between the peering entities.  The key part being between the entities.  Why would that be anyone else's business but their own? Do you publicize your agreements for your contracts with your peers (or partners as we call them in our business)?

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , mstefanik wrote


    So, you have the misconception that the current system in the United States operates in a free market? Adjust that belief system and then re-evaluate.

    And "get rid of the monopolies" is not a practical solution, just like it's impractical to have thousands of independent power grids or thousands of sewer systems competing to provide service to customers in a region. The Internet writ large is a de facto public utility, and people should be ensured the same kind of access to it that they do to the power grid, water and sewage systems in their communities.

    Not a misconception. I realize the ISPs (in areas, not all) have been given a monopoly.  Once monopolies are in place they just seem to extended forever ultimately leaving customers with no way to make a different choice with their money. Instead we end up with a regulatory board(s) that move at a snail's pace and end up micromanaging market demands.  It would be nice to find another way rather than revert to the past ways.