NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Richard Bennett on Comcast and Fairness (from IP)
|
This may be a bit philosophical for this list but I think
we have to get to the essential assumption that a carrier can determine the
meaning of the traffic and then act on it whether for our benefit or otherwise. To make this very simple and clear 1 How much is that bit worth and is it more important than
this bit 0 Ideally this would be the end
of the post but it’s probably too cryptic so. In case the implication is not obvious then remember that we
have lots of packets and the carriers don't have the context to determine the
meaning. They can attempt with DPI and other hacks but ultimately they are just
guessing and it's MYOB anyway. In traditional telecom they did in fact know a lot about context
because they transported messages not bits but common carriage put limits on their
ability to act on their presumptions. They do distinguish between business and
residential service but they can’t enforce it! We’re still in a transition and confuse the two models
– broadband is still about services with the Internet treated as a
service in a small partition managed by the same kind of usage models that determined
telecom capacity. The key difference is between capacity planning based on
presumed limits and the Internet dynamic which can take the same bits and
create capacity by having the users redefine them according to what works for
them. -----Original Message----- I'll respond to the comments on my reply. "I agree, Kevin, that as a matter of principle it's
not the network's job to "determine the value of bits", but I
disagree that all bits are therefore of equal value. We all know that some
information is more valuable to us personally than other information, and we're
quite good at sorting it all out. I propose that we communicate our
own determination to the network, and require it to convey
bits (packets, really) at the priorities we've specified. This is what
we do in WiFi networks with WME enabled, maintain separate priority
queues for four types of data, and it works quite well, and with no Telco
in the picture. " You're mixing personal QoS which can occur at a
residential router and network QoS. We have personal technology, it works,
anyone can go down to a retailer and get a QoS router. Where your logic
breaks down is where your QoS preferences as a network user interfere
with mine. My priorities are not my neighbors priorities and they're
certainly not my ISPs. If I communicate that my bittorrent download is
priority, can we expect that an ISP will just accept that? If not, will
they want to bill for that 'priority' and will that not lead to the
type of competition differentials we're currently seeing for VoIP
products in Canada. The ISPs charging 'thinly veiled VoIP tax[es]' so
that competing services continue to work? Some Questions: Do you propose that we create a gradient of bandwidth
pricing? Would top priority bandwidth cost more? Isn't this the two-tier scenario, and highly prejudicial
to the poor? Wouldn't this discourage the development of new media
services that require both high bandwidth and low latency? Wouldn't this give a distinct competitive advantage to
the ISP over third-party competitors? Doesn't this work as as a disincentive to create faster
networks, as if the normal pipe is purposefully broken or neglected, then
all users will be forced onto the priority pipe and therefore generate
more revenue for carriers? Is it not just cheaper, easier and more socially fair
that the carriers be required to build their network's capacity in ratio to
overall usage so that all applications and participants get the best
possible service? The business of packet priority is not a technical one,
it is instead a social question of considerable consequence. Kevin McArthur Richard Bennett wrote: > A few responses to some of the remarks on my article
posted on > NNSquad, for the mutual benefit and what-not. > > Kevin McArthur wrote: >> It is not the purpose of a network to determine
the value of bits, >> nor is it right to treat any bit as better than
another. A text >> message might be really important to someone
else, but my ability to >> watch a streaming news report is really
important to me. Which one >> will the carrier prioritize? This isn't a
determination they can >> make, nor is it one where the value of the
transmission can be >> determined by the number or amount of bits
traveling. > I agree, Kevin, that as a matter of principle it's
not the network's > job to "determine the value of bits", but
I disagree that all bits are > therefore of equal value. We all know that some
information is more > valuable to us personally than other information,
and we're quite good > at sorting it all out. I propose that we communicate
our own > determination to the network, and require it to
convey bits (packets, > really) at the priorities we've specified. This is
what we do in WiFi > networks with WME enabled, maintain separate
priority queues for four > types of data, and it works quite well, and with no
Telco in the picture. > > Barry Gold wrote: >> But even if the "excessive" user
_were_ "blocking the line to >> the...buffet" (presumably by filling the
local loop up with his >> packets), dropping packets is a useful
solution. The ISP can (or >> should be able to) program the cable modem to
drop the packets before >> they ever get on the local loop -- right there
in the user's >> house/apartment/business. Or if the user
owns the modem, the ISP can >> put a minimal router with usage control at the
point where the wire >> emerges from the user's building, or where it
connects to the main >> cable at the utility pole or undergound system. > As others have pointed out, the DOCSIS cable modem
carrier doesn't > have the ability to instruct the user's modem to
drop packets rather > than attempt to transmit them. Dropping packets also
has no immediate > effect on the load on the local segment caused by
BitTorrent > handshakes. Packet drop reduces the load on a
segment caused by an > ongoing stream of TCP traffic, but it does nothing
to reduce load > caused by SYN responses when the SYNs are coming
from outside the > segment. > > Andy Richardson wrote: >> They can go in several different directions: >> (1) upgrade their infrastructure to handle
the traffic >> (2) lower prices to make up for lower
network performance >> (3) lose customers until the problem
basically fixes itself >> (4) establish tiers of access w/ easily
understood caps, charging >> more for heavier access >> (5) implement a shady scheme of network
shaping and undocumented >> caps until the market matures and rome burns,
see option 3. > In fact, Comcast at least is doing all the above.
Later this year, > they're rolling out an upgrade to 130/100 Mb/s
service, which will > presumably complement the existing offerings, which
include 4 and 6 > Mb/s residential and a commercial service where it's
OK to run > servers. The current flap over Comcast comes from
people with want to > operate servers (BitTorrent Seeder is simply a
server) in violation of > the TOS for residential accounts. Buy a commercial
account and you can > seed to your heart's content. > > RB |