[sllug-members]: Comcast has problems

[Knight Walker]

On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 15:41 -0700, Lonnie Olson wrote:
> My point is that I don't want congress making laws about these kinds of 
> things.  I don't think it should be illegal for Alice to prioritize her 
> VoIP packets.
> 
> It is up to the customer to choose their ISP carefully.  If they don't 
> like Alice's crummy Skype/Vonage service, they can switch.  If they 
> don't like their limited bandwidth, they can switch.  Free Market.

The problem with that argument is that the Free Market does not reach
everywhere, and especially when it comes to "Internet Information
Services" it nearly falls apart.  Until there is a critical mass of
people in an area, the ISP choices are extremely limited.

> This argument is only valid for areas that do not have DSL available, do 
> not have any Wireless broadband providers, but do have cable internet 
> available.  These few areas do not have a choice of ISP.  This is the 
> only area where having laws or regulations may be good.  However these 
> areas are very small, and are shrinking all the time.  On a side note, 
> the ubiquitous availability of Satellite internet services is almost 
> compelling enough to completely eradicate this argument already.

And there are more of those areas than you think, and they're larger
than you think.  Until recently, I lived in one of those areas, and the
only reason I don't now is because the area grew enough that Comcast and
Qwest finally decided it was worth their time.  And for a while (Over a
year) it was just Comcast.  That doesn't really leave a whole lot of
choice, so the Free Market falls down.

And the ubiquitous nature of satellite Internet means almost nothing
because most of the time upstream is still through a modem, and even if
it isn't, the lag is horrendous.  I'm not even talking about things that
require low latency; even browsing a webpage feels like you're slogging
through molasses.

Yeah, it's something the same way a shoe with a hole in it is something.

> All DSL users have a choice of ISP.  They may be forced to use Qwest for 
> the local loop, but that is already regulated.  They are *not* forced to 
> use Qwest or MSN as their ISP.  They can choose.  This choice is 
> critical for the Free Market to work.

Exactly, and most opponents of Net Neutrality are trying to do an
end-run around the Free Market.  They're not targeting the customers or
quite often the local ISPs.  They're targeting the backbones and the
service and content providers.

> Instead of promoting Net Neutrality, how about we promote choice of 
> ISPs.  We can also promote the use of our voice at our ISPs.  I am more 
> pro consumer, than I am pro regulation.

That doesn't mean squat if the backbone provider that services the
entire state degrades the service to Yahoo because Google paid and Yahoo
didn't.

After saying all this, I'm not sure I'm pro-Neutrality legislation.  The
problem, as I see it, is that those who don't want Neutrality don't just
want to use QoS, they want to use it maliciously.  They want to throw up
toll booths.  They want to double-dip.  They're not content to charge
about the highest rates in the developed world for bandwidth, they want
to charge your ISP for the privilege of you getting online, and then
turn around and charge eBay and Yahoo and Microsoft for the privilege of
not ending up stuck in the slow lane behind all the traffic coming in
from Europe or Asia.  If Google pays and Yahoo doesn't, an underhanded
carrier can degrade the non-payer to the point of dial-up speeds or even
network timeouts while the one who pays (Or pays the most) gets the best
QoS.  The customer will have no idea this is happening; they'll only
know that Yahoo is dog slow while Google is blazing fast.

However, on the other side of the coin we have the bi-polar,
schizophrenic Congress (But I repeat myself).  These are the same bunch
of people who can't seem to write a law at anything above a third-grade
level. If they end up making the rules, they'll not only say that
carriers can't use technological means to degrade service, they'll say
they can't use technological means to improve service either.

So we (consumers) are screwed either way.  Either we'll end up with
legally mandated FIFO on our Internet connections, or we'll end up
bending over to the state-supported monopolies who continue to run
rough-shod over the Free Market.

End Rant

-KW