NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: [OT?] NN definition(s?)
I'd normally resist the temptation to jump into this fray, but this particular exchange got the better of me. To be blunt: No, Mr. Bennett, it is not the first order of business, nor should it be. Supporters of the various Net Neutralities can, will and should join in their efforts to defend the Internet as "a maximally unhindered, useful, competitive, fair, and open environment for the broadest possible range of applications and services." For example, I may think that tolerating QoS based routing is by in large a complete abrogation of the end-to-end principle that I use as a measure of Network Neutrality, but that in no way prevents me from supporting the efforts of people like Tim Wu and Larry Lessig who appear (for reasons still beyond me) to think it's okay. It's at least a step in the right direction. In sum, I can see that this is a cause that will serve my interests at least in part . . . and that's enough for now, given the alternative. Just for fun, I'll add that I find the analogy to climate change not unreasonable when the policy-wonks and lobbyists suggesting the 'necessity' of QoS are predominantly (if not exclusively) those working directly for the industries who stand to profit most from perpetuating (the myth of) bandwidth scarcity; even while leading researchers, including many of the luminaries responsible for designing and building the switching technologies we all rely on day-to-day, have testified and argued over, and over, and over again that it's a bad idea. I realize the telcos and cablecos will fight tooth and nail to prevent their business from becoming a commodity, but if it weren't for the effective oligarchy they enjoy and their capture of the agency that's supposed to regulate them, it'd have happened a long time ago. Fight on Richard . . . On Nov 11, 2007 1:13 PM, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 19:10 -0500, The Anarcat wrote: > > In a lot of anti-NN litterature I've seen, the "lack of a proper > > definition" has always been a key attack point. For me, it's a moot > > point: NN proponents have a fairly consistent definition, in my opinion. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Neutrality#Definitions_of_Network_Neutrality > > > > Can we move on now? > > The Wikipedia section you cite gives three different classes of > definition for NN, which I recall distinctly because I wrote it. Three > major classes is hardly "a fairly consistent definition," it's a rat's > nest for policy makers. > > So yes, the first order of business for any group that aims to protect a > principle is to define the principle. If that can't be done, then it may > as well pull up stakes and go home. > > I had hoped that this group would bring some light to a debate that has > so far been almost exclusively heat. So far, I don't see that happening, > except insofar as Brett has tried (valiantly, in my estimation) to > remind the group that ISPs aren't necessarily sitting on oceans of free > bandwidth that they hoard in order to keep the troops in Iraq, the > oceans overheating, and the dictators in power, etc. > > If we understand neutrality as meaning the ability of the typical, > non-abusive network user to access the sites and applications he wants > within the constraints of the laws of physics and the state of network > engineering, then we have to accept the fact that the infringement of > this ability doesn't come exclusively from ISPs or monopolistic phone > companies. Bandwidth hogs, spammers, worm artists, and other sources of > noise also interfere with network access in this world of shared > facilities and pooled bandwidth. > > Here's one example: the Azureus implementation of BitTorrent allows the > user to set a global TOS/DSCP label for all his transmit traffic. By > default, this value is set to a value that uses the default value set by > the OS, which in most cases is "Best Effort" in WiFi terms. > > I would contend that BitTorrent is the best example of "Background" or > "High Througput" traffic ever devised, so its default TOS is too high. > And because it's too high, it interferes with the user's own VoIP, > video-streaming, and web browsing traffic unless the user has Phil > Karns's sophistication and equipment (unlikely, of course.) > > If others agree that this is an abuse of net neutrality, perhaps we can > proceed to publicize it and have it corrected after a period of proper > flogging and public shaming. > > Just a thought, > > RB > > -- Mischa Beitz http://mischa.beitz.org