Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #5619

Re: POTUS backs net neutrality

Show all headers | View raw

Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org>:

> Now let's say that Comcast also does business in Idaho and Idaho does
> not have any such restrictions (or, even worse, explicitly allows ISPs
> to filter). And, by circumstance, a large switch exists in Idaho which 
> serves the Montana area. Comcast could, in order to comply with Idaho law, 
> claim that it is filtering and enacting restrictions in compliance with that
> law and not Montana's even though it affects Montana residents, it's
> subject to Idaho law and not Montana's. 
>
> See the problem here? 

We are talking about two different things: the last mile (subscriber
access) and trunk traffic (peering). There will always be trunk
providers that are willing to route bits through obnoxious inbetweeners.
The problem is the stranglehold on the subscribers. The subscribers are
most definitely under the dominion of the local government.

> It's for these reasons (inconsistency of laws) that federal regulatory 
> agencies exist and why historically the telecommunications industry fell 
> under some strict regulations and why it was a complete mess prior to the 
> 1990s (remember the old long-distance provider fiascos? I dread going back 
> to those days).

I don't remember that so I can't judge how the analogy would work for
today's backbone data networks. Relatively small companies routinely
subscribe to WAN VPNs with rate and QoS guarantees so there must be
quite a bit of competition.

> Canada, Australia, France, and Lithuania are different countries. I
> doubt that Comcast operates there...but I could be wrong, I suppose.
> And not at all set up legally like the United States. That's what
> we're discussing here, right? US law?

We are discussing the possible adverse consequences of letting states
handle net neutrality to their liking. If different countries can
operate under different rules, so could different states.

> My whole point was that a state-by-state solution is not a good one
> because it is easy to work around in any particular company's favor.

You would be right if there were a (near) monopoly over the trunk
networks. However,

   Antitrust authorities have acted to ensure that no provider grows
   large enough to dominate the backbone market. In the United States,
   the Federal Communications Commission has decided not to monitor the
   competitive aspects of the Internet backbone interconnection
   relationships as long as the market continues to function well.

   <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone#Regulation>

IOW, the backbone is not the topic of this discussion.


Marko

Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

POTUS backs net neutrality Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-11-10 23:31 +0000
  Re: POTUS backs net neutrality RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-11-11 08:05 +0000
    Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-11-11 09:10 +0000
      Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-11-11 14:08 +0000
        Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-11 19:20 +0000
          Re: POTUS backs net neutrality RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-11-12 14:46 +0000
            Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-12 17:26 +0200
              Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-12 19:07 +0000
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-12 22:12 +0200
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-12 21:09 +0000
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-13 00:27 +0200
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-11-13 11:26 +0000
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Anthony Giacalone <anthonyg@invalid.sdf.nospam.org> - 2014-11-13 14:44 +0000
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-11-13 17:02 +0200
                Re: POTUS backs net neutrality RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-11-14 16:18 +0000
    Re: POTUS backs net neutrality Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-11-13 16:21 -0800

csiph-web