Unfortunately I just looked at Google, and it appears the true story behind ISDN has been revisioned away so I'll summarize.
In the industry, it was commonly known as "I Smell Dollars Now". The sibling posters are quite correct that DSL was the explosion of the internet, along with cable etc. My point was that ISDN was an option *years* before those. What held back ISDN was a complete lack of interest in deploying it by the physical plant providers, coupled with exorbitant pricing because they could, and no one could compete with them.
The reason DSL went so well, was the forcible opening of the lines by Congress/FCC, which created an explosion of competition (hundreds and hundreds of ISPs), which have all but withered and died under the Bush administration's view that large corporations should be free to do anything and the market will decide.
I am very excited to see these changes, as it is a step in the right direction (a small one, but still a step), back to the days of the 90s opulence of consumer and small business success.
You sold the users unlimited bandwidth, either deliver it, or change your business model. The mistaken belief that your profit margins are your right, and that you have the retroactive authority to restrict what your users do with what you have sold them, is the reason that this whole mess has started. Business changes, if you are unwilling to adapt, that is one thing, but coming back and trying to force after the fact restrictions on what you have sold your customers is unethical at best.
Why do you get to decide that some users traffic is less important than others? Did they get any say in the matter? Are they currently under contract?
If you cannot provide what you have sold, tell your customers that and let them find other providers, but to deceitfully and silently degrade some customers service because they are lower margin than others, is reprehensible.
Pretty much, they know that the telcos/republicans would raise utter hell and the current anti-government populace would never accept such a "radical" solution. Its not so much that they're playing politics, they actually want to do that, but they are doing what they can at the moment to make things better, without destroying their ability to do so in the process.
Honestly the right solution is even more radical, (Australia just started it, look it up) but its politically untenable, for many reasons, not least of which the massive numbers of jobs impacted currently working for the incumbent providers (a very large voting base in its own right).
No, it is pure propaganda that network neutrality would affect any of the above very reasonable engineering decisions.
That being said, you should really re-examine your business model if p2p is filling your transit from a small percentage of your customers. That is an engineering problem with your sale of unlimited services without adequate feed.
Its more than that, the republicans have hated the internet regulations ever since Clinton burned the RBOCs back in the 90s with open lines. This is the backlash from that. Heck fiber roll outs themselves are backlash from that, not because they want to provide better service, but because they want to be the only ones providing that service.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, some of us are trying to fix it earlier than that, you are not helping.
The reason the internet exploded like it did, is not because of government stand off, far from it. If you believe that, go Google the story behind ISDN, and the telecommunications acts.
I find it amusing you use New York as an example, as New York is actually the historic example that *caused* franchise monopolies, as there were far too many power companies in the very beginning, and the distribution lines were a horrendous mess, and the goverment rightfully decided that delivery infrastructure should become a controlled utility.
The density penetration to make it worthwhile is just not attainable, especially as number of providers increases. Its not viable. Look back to the railroad days to see clearly what will happen.
That would work great, except it wouldn't, as infrastructure of this kind is a natural monopoly. It would be as effective as removing the monopoly on interstates, water, power, etc. No one wants 15 power companies competing to run power lines through your neighborhood, and its a horrible idea from an investment perspective as well.
It strikes me that perhaps the numbers show a sharp skew twords cost per unit being too high for sufficient market penetration, but that's just me =) I mean 5% is a really bad conversion rate of potential customers.
Pretty much, its one thing to make a spam bot that doesn't directly harm the user, its another to use some hack package with a gui to sell services to the highest bidder and get caught at it and traced. I wouldn't hire them based on their displayed level of ability, security concerns aside. That being said, the internet is not the wild west of 10 years ago, black hats now days aren't inventive college students lacking malice, but profiteers more akin to pirates, and I mean the real kind, not software sharers.
Actually that is a common belief in the U.S. right now, that the minority group is the one who should control all the laws and speak for "the people". It's not working so well for them either at the moment, but that doesn't mean they shut up and stop trying.
You could say the same thing about any transaction for that single transaction, that doesn't make it globally applicable.
If I hand a package to you, we are clearly in the same state, unless you are standing on the other side of the border, that doesn't mean my business is exclusively intrastate. Being an internet provider, by nature makes an intra-state only argument VERY difficult if not impossible by its very nature, as you are clearly connected to a global communications network, as that is what you are selling to your customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Or in goverment offices that are not at the top of the chain
Clearly you haven't been targeted by 4chan.
We have that now, it just doesn't block anything
Natural monopoly is not the regulated one, its when the market itself lends to a monopoly, which connecting infrastructure *absolutely does*
This is why...
No one wants that in their neighborhoods / cities.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4248715/2/istockphoto_4248715-phone-line-mess-in-shanghai-china.jpg
EXACTLY!!!!
(btw: nice to see another old hat around, I was part of the TN stuff with the Uni(s) / Oak Ridge)
Unfortunately I just looked at Google, and it appears the true story behind ISDN has been revisioned away so I'll summarize.
In the industry, it was commonly known as "I Smell Dollars Now". The sibling posters are quite correct that DSL was the explosion of the internet, along with cable etc. My point was that ISDN was an option *years* before those. What held back ISDN was a complete lack of interest in deploying it by the physical plant providers, coupled with exorbitant pricing because they could, and no one could compete with them.
The reason DSL went so well, was the forcible opening of the lines by Congress/FCC, which created an explosion of competition (hundreds and hundreds of ISPs), which have all but withered and died under the Bush administration's view that large corporations should be free to do anything and the market will decide.
I am very excited to see these changes, as it is a step in the right direction (a small one, but still a step), back to the days of the 90s opulence of consumer and small business success.
Your grocery store doesn't have to run wires through other people's property.
Ford Pinto
You sold the users unlimited bandwidth, either deliver it, or change your business model. The mistaken belief that your profit margins are your right, and that you have the retroactive authority to restrict what your users do with what you have sold them, is the reason that this whole mess has started. Business changes, if you are unwilling to adapt, that is one thing, but coming back and trying to force after the fact restrictions on what you have sold your customers is unethical at best.
Why do you get to decide that some users traffic is less important than others? Did they get any say in the matter? Are they currently under contract?
If you cannot provide what you have sold, tell your customers that and let them find other providers, but to deceitfully and silently degrade some customers service because they are lower margin than others, is reprehensible.
Pretty much, they know that the telcos/republicans would raise utter hell and the current anti-government populace would never accept such a "radical" solution. Its not so much that they're playing politics, they actually want to do that, but they are doing what they can at the moment to make things better, without destroying their ability to do so in the process.
Honestly the right solution is even more radical, (Australia just started it, look it up) but its politically untenable, for many reasons, not least of which the massive numbers of jobs impacted currently working for the incumbent providers (a very large voting base in its own right).
No, it is pure propaganda that network neutrality would affect any of the above very reasonable engineering decisions.
That being said, you should really re-examine your business model if p2p is filling your transit from a small percentage of your customers. That is an engineering problem with your sale of unlimited services without adequate feed.
Its more than that, the republicans have hated the internet regulations ever since Clinton burned the RBOCs back in the 90s with open lines. This is the backlash from that. Heck fiber roll outs themselves are backlash from that, not because they want to provide better service, but because they want to be the only ones providing that service.
This is probably the best explanation I've seen, do you mind if I use this in official meetings?
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, some of us are trying to fix it earlier than that, you are not helping.
The reason the internet exploded like it did, is not because of government stand off, far from it. If you believe that, go Google the story behind ISDN, and the telecommunications acts.
The Gulf of Mexican? Honestly? I mean come on...
The parent post deserves to be modded up, as it is exactly correct.
I find it amusing you use New York as an example, as New York is actually the historic example that *caused* franchise monopolies, as there were far too many power companies in the very beginning, and the distribution lines were a horrendous mess, and the goverment rightfully decided that delivery infrastructure should become a controlled utility.
The density penetration to make it worthwhile is just not attainable, especially as number of providers increases. Its not viable. Look back to the railroad days to see clearly what will happen.
That would work great, except it wouldn't, as infrastructure of this kind is a natural monopoly. It would be as effective as removing the monopoly on interstates, water, power, etc. No one wants 15 power companies competing to run power lines through your neighborhood, and its a horrible idea from an investment perspective as well.
It strikes me that perhaps the numbers show a sharp skew twords cost per unit being too high for sufficient market penetration, but that's just me =) I mean 5% is a really bad conversion rate of potential customers.
Pretty much, its one thing to make a spam bot that doesn't directly harm the user, its another to use some hack package with a gui to sell services to the highest bidder and get caught at it and traced. I wouldn't hire them based on their displayed level of ability, security concerns aside. That being said, the internet is not the wild west of 10 years ago, black hats now days aren't inventive college students lacking malice, but profiteers more akin to pirates, and I mean the real kind, not software sharers.
Actually that is a common belief in the U.S. right now, that the minority group is the one who should control all the laws and speak for "the people". It's not working so well for them either at the moment, but that doesn't mean they shut up and stop trying.
No kidding. Its the holy grail for Cisco knowledge, not common sense. Attributing anything except extensive Cisco knowledge to a CCIE is a fallacy.
And yes, before everyone gets all indignant, I am a CCIE, and yes it was a serious pain to get.
You could say the same thing about any transaction for that single transaction, that doesn't make it globally applicable.
If I hand a package to you, we are clearly in the same state, unless you are standing on the other side of the border, that doesn't mean my business is exclusively intrastate. Being an internet provider, by nature makes an intra-state only argument VERY difficult if not impossible by its very nature, as you are clearly connected to a global communications network, as that is what you are selling to your customers.