new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Steve Litt]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 12:31:51 -0700
"Herminio Hernandez, Jr." <herminio.hernandezjr at gmail.com> wrote:

> I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling.
> First there is a technical misunderstanding. 

[snip tech explanation that could be addressed without making the
Internet oligopoly owned]

> 
> This is not free there are
> serious costs involved in man hours and infrastructure. Someone needs
> to bear that cost. This is why I am not opposed to fast lanes. If
> Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure all of the massive amounts to
> data are push is delivered efficiently, then the ISPs should be free
> to charge a premium for this service. Netflix does not want to bear
> this cost, hense their support for Net Neutrality. They want the ISPs
> to bear the cost, but then result of that is we bear the cost via
> data caps.

Those poor ISPs. What are there, about six of them? Neatly dividing the
country so few have more than two choices, and lots have only one? Is
this how capitalism is supposed to work?

You can make the next Netflix. Make a better protocol, have better
films. You CANNOT make a competitor to Verison: You cannot trench
through peoples yards. As a matter of fact, many states have made laws
prohibiting a municipality from providing their residents with
broadband. The ISPs have an oligopoly, and in many places a monopoly.
They're doing fine, even if they do pay some of Netflix' freight. 

Monopolies that must dig up your yard (or use scarce radio bandwidth)
to deliver a very necessary service are called utilities. They're
heavily regulated to prevent monopolistic exploitation. Those wanting
to end Net Neutrality want it both ways for the six broadband providers.

The first decade of the popular Internet were backboned by phone lines,
completely regulated as utilities. Everybody had the same chance, the
same deal. The result was a level of competition that spawned
innovation that drove the 1990's economy: Probably some of you remember
that. Capitalism's benefits are amazing if you get monopolism out of
the way.

But wait, there's more. If Net Neutrality goes away, the oligopolists
become gatekeepers. Compete with their programming? It's back to the
slow lane for you. Have a website or service promoting Net Neutrality
and criticizing the oligopoly? Yeah, it's too bad about those data
glitches you somehow keep encountering.


> 
> When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and
> control. 

Pre-cisely! And most of the campaign contributions electing
anti-net-neutrality people come from the oligopoly, who want to become
more monopolistic, extracting more money for less service.

Net Neutrality is serious business. I'm betting that if it's discarded,
innovation decreases, and there go the tech jobs. There's a planned
nationwide pro-net-neutrality protest at Verizon stores
(https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/22/net-neutrality-advocates-plan-protests-for-december-7-at-verizon-stores/)

If you care about creating technical jobs, especially the kind at small
businesses, who do much less offshoring and therefore are likely to
hire *you*, attend this protest. If you'd like an IT marketplace with
greater upward pressure on your salary, I suggest you take off work or
at your lunchtime go to that protest and help out at the protest.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
November 2017 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust