Last mile as a utility is a great idea. Use the last mile like we used to use phone lines and modems -- access any ISP you want with the same last mile infrastructure. Don't like your current ISP? Change to another!
The *mile* isn't blocked. The ability for multiple ISPs to *use* it is blocked. Use this moment to realize that you don't want the "network neutrality" that has been pushed in the last few years.
You really want neutral last mile infrastructure -- and multiple ISPs with access to that last mile.
Think about dial-up. One last mile infrastructure that could reach many different ISPs. If you ISP didn't treat you well, you voted with your pocketbook, and move to another.
The telco providers (both DSL and cable) stomped on choice of ISP as soon as they were allowed to do so.
We need to separate the *transport* infrastructure from the ISP *service* that rides on it. Regulate the transport, allow the service to run free of regulation.
Infrastructure providers should provide transport / access only. They connect an end user to an ISP. If you want regulation, you should put it at this layer.
Customer should be able to buy transport to a plethora of ISPs over this infrastructure. Once true choice of ISPs is in place, it becomes obvious that network neutrality as it exists, is silly. My ISP should be free to swing whatever deals they want to sway me to use their service.
This separation can also fix network neutrality issues without difficult to enforce regulations. If you are free to jump from ISP to ISP, you can change providers easily.
If you don't think this is viable, think about when we used to use dial-up. You bought your pipe from one company, and Internet access from another. If your ISP didn't treat you well, you simply dialed another provider via the independent pipe.
Let's assume this break between transport (DSL / Cable) and service (ISP) exists -- what would happen to the market?
I can see multiple ISPs competing for a customer across the same infrastructure -- much like dial-up used to be like! If you didn't like your ISP service, you could switch at any time!
The transport company would only connect you to your ISP. So they'd want to reach as many houses/businesses as possible. Its possible that it wouldn't be very cost effective to try to tier services based on speed, so they'd just have a wide open pipe from you to your ISP.
ISPs would be free to strike deals with any content provider they wanted. I might choose to use an ISP affiliated with my favorite movie or search provider. Smart ISPs could increase the number of subscribers by getting the content providers to help subsidize the consumer's service costs. Prices could plummet!
You could buy a connection to a slightly more expensive ISP that didn't take subsidies from content providers and get a TRUE neutral connection.
The transport companies use the public rights-of-way, so they should have the public good in mind. We could shift universal fund money to support getting transport services to rural areas, and let the ISPs pick things up at the aggregation points.
I don't see *any* downside to separating the transport and service from a consumer standpoint.
I was working for a startup. We were in the midst of some regulatory and financial problems that were rather public. The president of the company asked what I though of a press release the new owners wanted put out. I told him that I didn't work for people that were that disingenuous.
As I was walking out the door 20 minutes later, I dropped my letter of resignation on his desk.
I, too, have thought about this idea for several years. It seems like it is a simple way to add another (greatly needed) check to balance out some of the issues our current mode of legislation lacks.
I want an ISP that prioritizes traffic in accordance to my desires.
Remember dial-up? If you didn't like the way your ISP treated you, you hung up the phone and called another. I want that back. Let's make the access lines neutral, not the ISP.
If you had a choice of 24 ISPs on DSL, 13 more via cable, 25 via fiber, and another 16 via wireless, you would likely find an ISP that treated your traffic the way you wanted. And they'd be in a serious state of competition.
That's the "neutral" networking I want in the future. I want to see Demon get all of the gamers, and some other ISP get all the day-traders. I want Yagoo! subsidizing ISP access for people that chose to use them as their exclusive search engine.
People keep forgetting that networking is a layered service.
Access methods (DSL, Cable, Fiber, Wireless) shouldn't determine the ISP -- they should simply be means to *get* to an ISP. That way, I can switch ISPs whenever one starts acting in a way I don't like. It used to work well with dial-up -- you could have *several* ISPs from one phone line. There's no technical reason we can't go back to such a situation.
Go down a layer. Let's have the regulations guarantee *packet* delivery. Whoever owns the fiber/copper/wireless infrastructure can have a neutral packet delivery service. Pay them for a point to point conenction to any of a multitude of ISPs.
That's a network neutrality plan I can live with...
Slashdot Mirror
Last mile as a utility is a great idea. Use the last mile like we used to use phone lines and modems -- access any ISP you want with the same last mile infrastructure. Don't like your current ISP? Change to another!
The *mile* isn't blocked. The ability for multiple ISPs to *use* it is blocked. Use this moment to realize that you don't want the "network neutrality" that has been pushed in the last few years.
You really want neutral last mile infrastructure -- and multiple ISPs with access to that last mile.
Think about dial-up. One last mile infrastructure that could reach many different ISPs. If you ISP didn't treat you well, you voted with your pocketbook, and move to another.
The telco providers (both DSL and cable) stomped on choice of ISP as soon as they were allowed to do so.
We need to separate the *transport* infrastructure from the ISP *service* that rides on it. Regulate the transport, allow the service to run free of regulation.
Infrastructure providers should provide transport / access only. They connect an end user to an ISP. If you want regulation, you should put it at this layer.
Customer should be able to buy transport to a plethora of ISPs over this infrastructure. Once true choice of ISPs is in place, it becomes obvious that network neutrality as it exists, is silly. My ISP should be free to swing whatever deals they want to sway me to use their service.
This separation can also fix network neutrality issues without difficult to enforce regulations. If you are free to jump from ISP to ISP, you can change providers easily.
If you don't think this is viable, think about when we used to use dial-up. You bought your pipe from one company, and Internet access from another. If your ISP didn't treat you well, you simply dialed another provider via the independent pipe.
Let's assume this break between transport (DSL / Cable) and service (ISP) exists -- what would happen to the market?
I can see multiple ISPs competing for a customer across the same infrastructure -- much like dial-up used to be like! If you didn't like your ISP service, you could switch at any time!
The transport company would only connect you to your ISP. So they'd want to reach as many houses/businesses as possible. Its possible that it wouldn't be very cost effective to try to tier services based on speed, so they'd just have a wide open pipe from you to your ISP.
ISPs would be free to strike deals with any content provider they wanted. I might choose to use an ISP affiliated with my favorite movie or search provider. Smart ISPs could increase the number of subscribers by getting the content providers to help subsidize the consumer's service costs. Prices could plummet!
You could buy a connection to a slightly more expensive ISP that didn't take subsidies from content providers and get a TRUE neutral connection.
The transport companies use the public rights-of-way, so they should have the public good in mind. We could shift universal fund money to support getting transport services to rural areas, and let the ISPs pick things up at the aggregation points.
I don't see *any* downside to separating the transport and service from a consumer standpoint.
I was working for a startup. We were in the midst of some regulatory and financial problems that were rather public. The president of the company asked what I though of a press release the new owners wanted put out. I told him that I didn't work for people that were that disingenuous.
As I was walking out the door 20 minutes later, I dropped my letter of resignation on his desk.
So I guess it was actually 20 minutes notice...
I, too, have thought about this idea for several years. It seems like it is a simple way to add another (greatly needed) check to balance out some of the issues our current mode of legislation lacks.
A few others are documented at:
http://miscreantsinaction.blogspot.com/
Yes, contact them. They don't have all of the answers, but they do have a lot of useful programs!
I don't want a neutral network.
I want an ISP that prioritizes traffic in accordance to my desires.
Remember dial-up? If you didn't like the way your ISP treated you, you hung up the phone and called another.
I want that back. Let's make the access lines neutral, not the ISP.
If you had a choice of 24 ISPs on DSL, 13 more via cable, 25 via fiber, and another 16 via wireless, you would likely find an ISP that treated your traffic the way you wanted. And they'd be in a serious state of competition.
That's the "neutral" networking I want in the future. I want to see Demon get all of the gamers, and some other
ISP get all the day-traders. I want Yagoo! subsidizing ISP access for people that chose to use them as their exclusive search engine.
People keep forgetting that networking is a layered service.
Access methods (DSL, Cable, Fiber, Wireless) shouldn't determine the ISP -- they should simply be means
to *get* to an ISP. That way, I can switch ISPs whenever one starts acting in a way I don't like. It used to
work well with dial-up -- you could have *several* ISPs from one phone line. There's no technical reason we
can't go back to such a situation.
Go down a layer. Let's have the regulations guarantee *packet* delivery. Whoever owns the fiber/copper/wireless
infrastructure can have a neutral packet delivery service. Pay them for a point to point conenction to any of a multitude
of ISPs.
That's a network neutrality plan I can live with...
You seek PC Weasel.
http://www.realweasel.com/intro.html
How about running your own master DNS server, and having your provider slave from that.