dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
22

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

2 recommendations

tschmidt to openbox9

MVM

to openbox9

Re: A little dial-up history

said by openbox9:

Maybe because after the tolls disappeared, people disproportionately consumed more of the limited resource????
I think the dial up experience is a great example of the interplay of business interests and regulatory regime acting in the public good..

The Bell's rightfully complained about the long connect times of dialup users and that the FCC forbid them from differentiating between voice and data calls. The PSTN was designed for much shorter average call times.

So what was the effect of this ruling? Once a person invested in a computer and modem there was no incremental cost. This encouraged experimentation. Studies have shown that consumers prefer fixed pricing and even relatively small incremental cost discourages use. Because use was in effect free lots of people got online and lots of businesses were started (and many failed) exploiting this new technology. This resulted in a fortuitous cycle of increased value and demand for faster connection speed.

FCC rules encourage folks to experiment with the Internet. As perceived value increased it drove demand for faster connections. As faster connections became ubiquitous entrepreneurs developed services that were not possible over low speed dialup. This created an entirely new market for communication companies, selling multi-megabit connection to every household. If it had not been for free local calling, people would not have experimented as much, delaying interest in the Internet and demand for high speed Internet access.

Ideally net neutrality will have the same effect. Well crafted regulations will force companies to do what they would not do on their own. Keeping the Internet open will lead to ever greater usage, ultimately benefiting the same companies chafing under Federal regulations.

/tom

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

1 recommendation

funchords

MVM

What a fantastic message, Tom! Great thinking!
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to tschmidt

Premium Member

to tschmidt
said by tschmidt:

Studies have shown that consumers prefer fixed pricing and even relatively small incremental cost discourages use.
Of course consumers prefer fixed pricing. That doesn't change the resource usage concerns.
said by tschmidt:

Ideally net neutrality will have the same effect. Well crafted regulations will force companies to do what they would not do on their own.
For the record, I'm not against well crafted net neutrality rules, I just don't believe they're necessary at this time. My concern, as I'm sure many others' would be, is the potential for poorly crafted net neutrality rules that may end up driving providers precisely to the scenario that you're trying to avoid; open networks, but increased consumers costs for usage that prohibit experimentation and new demand.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

1 edit

1 recommendation

funchords

MVM

said by openbox9:

My concern, as I'm sure many others' would be, is the potential for poorly crafted net neutrality rules that may end up driving providers precisely to the scenario that you're trying to avoid; open networks, but increased consumers costs for usage that prohibit experimentation and new demand.
I say this in all seriousness, I'd like your help.

I want to make sure that these rules are right for users, innovators, and providers alike. They should be maximally flexible technically, while disallowing anti-competitive gatekeeping on the business side.

The ISPs aren't the enemy. But they're the ones with both incredible power and incredible pressure. The rules should reflect that.

We're going to have NN rules, and we're likely to have NN laws. I work for New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative and we strive for explaining technology to policymakers. They don't understand this stuff and they're bombarded with wrong info from the carrier lobbies. If you see something going the wrong way, I'm likely in a position to help head it off. (That makes me sound more important than I am, I'm just a voice in a coalition, but I'm listened to on technical facts.)

I know we don't agree on whether to have rules, but that's no longer our question to answer. The question is what should they be to make it a win-win-win for everyone in the Internet community.
nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX

nevtxjustin to tschmidt

Member

to tschmidt
said by tschmidt:

This created an entirely new market for communication companies
Such as pushed advertising, gratuitous Flash animation, animated dancing girls selling insurance or home mortgages.

tschmidt
MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Consolidated Com..
·Republic Wireless
·Hollis Hosting

tschmidt to funchords

MVM

to funchords
said by funchords:

The ISPs aren't the enemy.
I think that often gets lost in the debate.

ISP's need to be profitable or they go out of business.

On the other hand as the owner's of the Internet on ramp they have tremendous power to shape the Internet.

The Internet is a dumb bit-delivery network. This is is major strength. Anyone can set up shop to provide a service without the permission or cooperation of network owners.

Public policy needs to strike a balance between public and private good. ISPs need to be profitable and the incredible communication revolution unleashed by the Internet needs to be nourished and protected.

/tom

tschmidt

tschmidt to nevtxjustin

MVM

to nevtxjustin
said by nevtxjustin:

Such as pushed advertising, gratuitous Flash animation, animated dancing girls selling insurance or home mortgages.
True - it also made this discussion possible.

I often tell this story.

To my father the world was a big place. Took him weeks on the troop transport to get from the US to China during WWII.

To me the world is much smaller, by jet I can be anywhere I want in a day.

To my kids there is no notion of distance. Have a question about a far away place. Ask a person who lives there. In minutes you have a first hand report.

Certainly there are downsides to increased connectivity but on balance creation of the Internet is at least as revolutionary as the telegraph in reducing time and cost of moving information around the planet.

/tom
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to funchords

Premium Member

to funchords
said by funchords:

I say this in all seriousness, I'd like your help.
Will do. Given our opposite ends of this debate, if we can find a common ground, I'd begin to feel more comfortable.
said by funchords:

We're going to have NN rules, and we're likely to have NN laws.
You sound awfully sure about that. It'll be interesting to watch what happens over the next few months.
vp71inet
join:2005-05-12
Englishtown, NJ

vp71inet to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

For the record, I'm not against well crafted net neutrality rules, I just don't believe they're necessary at this time. My concern, as I'm sure many others' would be, is the potential for poorly crafted net neutrality rules that may end up driving providers precisely to the scenario that you're trying to avoid; open networks, but increased consumers costs for usage that prohibit experimentation and new demand.
Not necessary? Not this time? I guess that you are dwelling on the same assumptions that you are trying to dispel. Let us assume that consumer costs do increase when you have a more open network. The primary reason would likely be for lack of competition as we largely have today. Who are you to tell that this won't force creative minds to develop new algorithms/protocols, whatever, that would circumvent or render these barrier restrictions moot? This should be left to the proviso of the wider brain power of the world population, not the narrow grey matter of the ISP's.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

said by vp71inet:

The primary reason would likely be for lack of competition as we largely have today. Who are you to tell that this won't force creative minds to develop new algorithms/protocols, whatever, that would circumvent or render these barrier restrictions moot?
You mean like alternative ISPs building out their own infrastructure to induce competition (which I favor)? Or perhaps the government stepping on the incumbents and forcing wholesale line sharing (which I don't favor)? Or perhaps the government builds out a common infrastructure similar to the roadway system, and then leases the authority to utilize the infrastructure to whomever would like to provide service (I stand in the middle on this and would need to see the business case before leaning either way)?