What Net Neutrality should and should not cover

[mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman)]

Barry Shein wrote:
> I think the problem is simply a lack of competition and the rise of,
> in effect, vertical trusts. That is, content providers also
> controlling last-mile services.
>
> What exists is rife with conflict of interest and unfair market
> power. Particularly in that wire-plants are generally protected
> monopolies or small-N oligopolies.
>
> The wire-plant* operators and content providers need to be separated
> and competition needs to be mandated by allowing easy and fair access
> to wire-plants.
>
> Wire-plant operators should be closely regulated. Content providers
> should not, in general, be regulated.
>
>
> * Which of course may not involve any actual wires but it's a term of
> art, L1/L2 if you prefer.

I kind of think Layer 3 - metropolitan area IP carriage seems to be 
where the issues converge.  Somehow the notion of multiple IP providers, 
operating across unbundled fiber, doesn't seem to work out in practice.

Yes, there are a few municipal networks that provide Ethernet VPNs as 
the basic block of unbundled service - with multiple players providing 
various Internet (IP), video, and voice services on their own VPNs; and 
there are some networks, particularly in Canada, where the unit of 
unbundling is a wavelength, on a common fiber/conduit plant; but in most 
cases, economies of scale seem to dictate a single IP-layer fabric for a 
geographic area.  (Think campus and enterprise networks.)

Miles Fidelman




-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra