Because freedom can't protect itself
As the guy quoted here in partial support of both of your arguments, I need to try to set the record a little straighter.
I made a bunch of comments on the main mailing list I operate on here:
The things that bug me most about the net neutrality debate are:
0) The whole slow lane/fast lane conception is just wrong. Internet traffic looks nothing like vehicle traffic. On roads, you have only a few lanes to put cars in. On the internet, it's more like you break up the cars and trucks into atoms (packets), mix them all together, pour them through various choke points and reassemble them at their destination no matter in what order they arrive.
Traffic management at these levels IS needed, and managed at a e2e level by a TCP-friendly protocol (generally), and at a router level by queue management schemes like "Drop Tail". Massive improvements to drop tail, fixing what is known as "bufferbloat" with better "active queue management" (AQM) and packet scheduling schemes (FQ) such as codel, fq_codel, RED, and PIE are being considered by the IETF to better manage congestion, and the net result of these techniques is vastly reduced latency across the chokepoints, vastly improved levels of service for latency sensitive services (such as voice, gaming, and videoconferencing), with only the fattest flows losing some packets and thus slowing down - regardless of who is sending them. Politics doesn't enter into it. Any individual can make their own links better, as can any isp, and vendor.
Furthermore individual packets can be marked by the endpoints to indicate their relative needs. This is called QoS, and the primary technique is "diffserv".
There are plenty of problems with diffserv in general, but they are very different from thinking about "fast or slow" lanes, which are rather difficult to implement compared to any of the techniques noted above. You have to have a database of every ip address you wish to manipulate accessed in real time, on every packet, in order to implement the lanes.
IF ONLY I could see in the typical network neutrality debater a sane understanding and discussion of simple AQM, packet scheduling, and QoS techniques, I would be extremely comforted in the idea that sane legislation would emerge. But I've been waiting 10 years for that to happen.
We have tested, and have deployed these algorithms to dramatic reductions in latency and increased throughput on consumer grade hardware, various isps and manufacturers have standardized on various versions, (docsis 3.1 is pie, free.fr uses fq_codel, as does streamboost, as do nearly all the open source routing projects such as openwrt)
I really wish those debating net neutrality actually try - or at least be aware of - these technical solutions to the congestion problems they seek to solve with legislation. I wouldn't mind at all legal mandates to have aqm on, by default. :)
It makes a huge difference, on all technologies available today:
See also the bufferbloat mailing lists.
1) if we want true neutrality, restrictive rules by the ISPs regarding their customers hosting services of their own have to go - and nobody's been making THAT point, which irks me significantly. In an age where you have, say, gbit fiber to your business, it makes quite a lot of sense from a security and maintenence perspective
to be hosting your own data and servers on your own darn premise, not
2) I didn't make any points about competitiveness either; that was robert's piece. I didn't like the original 1996 policy nor do I think title II is the answer.
For the record:
I oppose the time warner merger, and also oppose rules and regulations that prevent municipalities from running their own fiber and allowing providers to compete on top of it. In fact I strongly, strongly favor commonly owned infrastructure with services allowed to compete on top of those, a model that works well in europe and elsewhere.
I came very close to writing a letter to the FCC on that, but didn't.
I LIKED the world we had in the 90s with tens of thousands of ISPs competing
on top of universally agreed upon link technologies. I ran one of those ISPs. That world was pre both of those regulations, where the then monopoly was required to provide access that anyone could buy for a fair price.
I am glad gfiber exists to put a scare into certain monopolists, but even then I'd be tons happier if municipalities treated basic wired connectivity as we do roads and not as we do telephone poles.
It is one of my hopes that one day wireless technologies would
become sufficiently robust to break the last wire monopolies once and
I really hope my last comment made it.
Indeed, Dave, I think the point you get to at the end is the one that is most accessible to legislators and end users. Imagine if we had competition for roads. Suppose you could get road service from Transcast or from Horizon. Transcast and Horizon both would have to pave a road to your door and talk you into using their road and not their competitor's road. Aside from a few rabid objectivists, nobody would seriously propose such a system, because in order to have any competition at all you have to at a minimum double the cost of delivering road service. All of the costs double--snow clearing, repair, original paving. And that's just for a duopoly: to get real competition you'd need more road service providers. Pretty soon your neighborhood would be mostly asphalt, and your cost to get road service would skyrocket.
The analogy isn't perfect: it is easier to deliver internet to the home than pavement, in the sense that two competing services can in theory share the same conduit or pole. But in every other sense the cost is similar: the cost to deliver internet service increases linearly with the roads leading to the homes on which the service is delivered, and delivering fiber is by no means cheap.
So in practice in most locations you wind up with a duopoly at best, and a monopoly at worst. Why not cut to the chase and just have the same people who do the roads do the last-mile internet service, and do it right: fiber to every home. Move the competition upstream, into the "points of presence" at the other end of the last-mile service. Delivering service to these points of presence is much easier and cheaper, and consequently meaningful competition between service providers is possible.
The system we have now lends itself to the gatekeeper who owns the last-mile connection using their monopoly to extract concessions from users of the network that would never be possible in an environment where there was competition. Get rid of this problem, and net neutrality becomes much less of a problem.
Probably the best description of how fiber can be rolled out I've read is here:
I certainly wouldn't mind an update on that network, today.
Putting fiber in the ground is a very expensive process. Even with gfiber asking whole neighborhoods to commit to doing it before rolling it out, there will be years before the real costs of putting it in the ground are paid for. Then, even if you create neutral parties to just manage the fiber - the ongoing costs of getting it working, keeping it working, and fixing it when it breaks have to be handled. Even if that org is limited to just physical interconnectivity, experts need to be online, people have to answer phones, and trucks gotta roll to fix things.
One of the hardest things is to agree on standards so that equipment and protocols can interoperate and to build hardware and software that does.
It is not an easy task, and yet, I do agree, allowing a vertically integrated content provider and ISP to own it all is proving out to be the wrong thing.
The best piece I've seen on the complexities and problems involved in wiring a major city for fiber is here:
But once you are done, it seems good.
I have a friend of mine, in sweden, that has his choice of 9 different ISPs to deal with, 100mbit symmetrical, and fiber to the wall.
Get breaking news on issues you care about
Help fight for our rights. Donate to the ACLU.
Sign up for the ACLU Action newsletter.
Chip in to help protect all of our rights and liberties.
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York NY 10004
This is the website of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about these two components of the ACLU.