[sllug-members]: Comcast has problems

[Lonnie Olson]

Knight Walker wrote:
> 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.

I still believe that these Cable only, no DSL areas are such a small 
percentage of the total area of the country that laws are extreme.  Your 
example alone proves that these areas are continuing to shrink.

> 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.

Agreed, that is why I said "almost".  Satellite doesn't quite count.

> 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.

But you aren't getting the point.  Even backbone providers need 
customers.  End-users choose their ISP, and ISPs choose their backbone 
providers.  Since I work for an ISP I understand this concept very well. 
  I would never choose a backbone provider that will cause me to lose 
customers.

Example of end-user influence:
Yesterday one of our tech support came to me with a problem.  A DSL user 
had noticed much slower speeds over the past week to many destinations. 
  Working with this customer and further investigation indicated there 
is a problem with a new backbone link that came up a week ago.  After 
troubleshooting with the backbone provider it was determined that this 
link (wireless) was always going to be this way, without new equipment, 
I immediately moved all traffic to another backbone link.  If the 
problem was found to be an uncooperative, or non-neutral provider, the 
service would be discontinued completely.

This means that one customer's complaint (since it reflects that of many 
other silent ones as well) can influence choice of backbone providers. 
Malicious backbone providers will lose clients.  They *need* Google and 
Yahoo just as much as Google and Yahoo *need* them.

> 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.

That customer will complain to their ISP, their ISP will complain to the 
backbone provider, the backbone provider with either fix it, or lose a 
customer.

I don't see a need for legislation right now, but I am not completely 
opposed to it.  As long as there is choice, it isn't necessary.  When 
that choice is gone, legislation will be necessary.

My biggest problem with legislation proposed so far is that it would 
limit legitimate ISPs from doing good traffic shaping.  It's effects 
reached way too far.  Too dangerous.  Any Net Neutrality (horrible name 
by the way) legislation has to be very carefully written with lots of 
input from informed sources on both sides of the fence.

> 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

Good rant!  Thank you.  Opinions are always welcome here.  :)

--lonnie